Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 22 (JHR)

Ujjwal Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-04

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
ORDER Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to forthwith determine Agreement No. 10F2-2007-08, entered into with the respondents for execution of repair and maintenance of a road Kharka to Kotang via Patgachha having a stretch of 4 Kms. The petitioner was successful in the NIT and was allotted the work vide letter no. 201 dated 20th February, 2008. He was under stipulation to complete the work by 25th March, 2008. Petitioner has, however, made representations before the respondents raising issues relating to non-completion of the work for reasons beyond his control such as non-payment of running bills due to nonavailability of funds; non-availability of raw materials and attack by Maoist Extremists in the area where the work was being executed. Since the respondents department failed to act as per the request made, petitioner has been compelled to move this Court. 3. As per the stand of the respondent State brought on record through an affidavit filed by respondent no. 4, petitioner has not raised any such issues regarding payment of advance bill and supply of material before the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization (Works) Division, Gumla. Reference has been made to the various clauses of the agreement in that regard. Counsel for the respondents further submits that repeated extensions were also granted to the petitioner to complete the work. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the correspondences undertaken between the Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of Works Division as also with the Superintending Engineer of the Rural Works Circle, Ranchi on the question of execution of the work by the petitioner vide Annexure- 4 and 5, letters dated 18th January, 2010 and 25th January, 2010. It is submitted that the lack of allotment for execution of the work and payment in lieu thereof is evident from the bare perusal of the these correspondences. 5. I have considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the relevant material facts noticed herein above. 6. On being asked, learned counsel for the parties have informed that despite almost eight years of execution of the agreement and the non-execution of the work for one reason or the other over which parties have traversed allegations against each other, the agreement has not yet been determined. 6. On being asked, learned counsel for the parties have informed that despite almost eight years of execution of the agreement and the non-execution of the work for one reason or the other over which parties have traversed allegations against each other, the agreement has not yet been determined. There is no reason why the competent authority/ respondent no. 4 would not take a final decision on the question of determination of Agreement No. 10F2-2007-08 executed with the petitioner in such state of facts. However, let it be also made clear that this Court has in no way made any comments on the merits of the allegations between the parties or the fault or liability of either of them. Accordingly a decision is required to be taken in that regard by the competent authority/respondent no. 4 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in which petitioner if asked to participate shall co-operate. Writ petition stands disposed of.