Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 544 (JHR)

Brajendra Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-03-21

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. 2. The following prayer has been made by the petitioner: "(i) For commanding upon the respondents to release the Earnest Money, Security Deposit and outstanding amounts against the work done by the petitioner pertaining to the construction of Road from Butberiya Rajbandh to Kulkulidangal, Block Shikaripara, District Dumka, length-8.49 Km, vide Agreement No. 3-F2 of 0708 dated 02.04.2007, which has been illegally withheld by the respondents authority and (ii) For commanding upon the respondents authority to consider the representation dated 13.04.2016 filed by the petitioner and take a decision within stipulated period due to the delay, resulting immense financial hardship to the petitioner after timely execution of the work." 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement has not been closed as would appear from the communication bearing Letter no. 234 dated 20th February, 2013 and Letter no. 993 dated 20th March, 2013 at Annexures-10 and 10/1 respectively between Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Dumka and Chief Engineer, Department of Rural Works, Govt. of Jharkhand (Respondent no. 4) and also with Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Rural Works, Govt. of Jharkhand (Respondent no. 3). On account of use of heavy vehicles on a rural road which under specification of the agreement is unable to bear such a load, the Executive Engineer had requested for permission for foreclosure of the agreement as per Annexure: 9/1 dated 20th February, 2013 addressed to respondent no. 4. Petitioner has therefore approached the respondent no. 2 for foreclosure of the agreement and return of his Earnest Money, Security Deposit and outstanding dues towards execution of work, Annexure-12 dated 13th April, 2016. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that if there are no allegations against the petitioner relating to non satisfactory execution of work and the work itself remains incomplete due to reason beyond his control and moreover when the agreement has yet not been closed, his outstanding dues including Earnest Money, security deposits is unnecessarily being withheld by the respondent authorities to his sufferance. Therefore, a direction may be issued upon the respondents for consideration of the grievances of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that instructions have not yet been received in the matter, as it has been taken up for the first time. Therefore, a direction may be issued upon the respondents for consideration of the grievances of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that instructions have not yet been received in the matter, as it has been taken up for the first time. Petitioner''s representation however can be considered by competent authority/respondent no. 4 in accordance with law after due verification of the execution of work and relevant records as well. 6. Upon consideration of the aforesaid submission of the parties in the background of relevant facts pleaded, writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his representation before competent authority/respondent no. 4 in respect of the aforesaid grievances. Needless to say, the competent authority/respondent no. 4 would look into the grievances of the petitioner in accordance with law, on due verification of the execution of work and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement in question within a reasonable time preferably 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with representation. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.