Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1973 (JHR)

V. R. Construction v. State of Jharkhand

2019-12-05

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder prayer has been made to quash the decision of the authorities, as contained in Memo No. 307 dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure 11), issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Latehar by which the Agreement Nos. LAT-03/2008-09, LAT-06/2009-10 and LAT-08/2009-10 for the Package Nos. JH 1404, JH 1403 and JH 1407, have been rescinded with a decision to forfeit the security money deposited by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid agreements. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, by referring to order dated 22.10.2019 passed by this Court in I.A. No. 913 of 2017, that work has already been completed by other contractor. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has submitted by referring to the stand taken in the counter affidavit that conscious decision has been taken by the respondents-authorities for forfeiture of the earnest money by rescinding the agreements and, therefore, the only claim left for its adjudication pertains to the legality and propriety of the decision taken by the respondents-authorities in forfeiting the earnest money. 4. In this regard, submission has been made by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner could not be able to complete the work as also the maintenance work could not be completed in terms and conditions of the agreements and, therefore, the respondents left with no option rescinded the agreements made in favour of petitioner with a decision to forfeit the security money deposited by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid agreements. In view thereof, the work has been allotted to other contractor, who has completed the work. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents-State that for recovery of the earnest money, a recovery case has been filed, which is pending before the Recovery Officer, Latehar, as would be evident from supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 04.08.2017. 5. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents-State that for recovery of the earnest money, a recovery case has been filed, which is pending before the Recovery Officer, Latehar, as would be evident from supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 04.08.2017. 5. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondents, is of the view that since the claim of the petitioner, at this stage, only pertains to the disbursement of the amount pertaining to earnest money, which has been forfeited in consonance with the terms and agreements of the agreements in question and further it is evident from the stand taken by the respondents in the supplementary counter affidavit that for recovery of the earnest money, a recovery case has been filed, which is pending before the Recovery Officer, Latehar, therefore for such a disputed question of fact, no direction can be passed by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to make interference with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 8. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to agitate the claim depending upon the outcome of the certificate proceeding.