Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 21 (MEG)

Robertson Lamare v. State of Meghalaya

2019-02-13

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Construction of the Water Supply System for Greater Raliang Water Supply Project, vide Work Order No. SE/PHE/Elect/TB:262/2011-12/92 dated 10.05.2011 has been issued in favour of the petitioner against the contract price of Rs. 6,99,73,000/-. It appears that the petitioner has not completed the Project within time. Respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 14.11.2018 has informed the petitioner to be present at the site for taking the final measurement necessary for preparation of the Bill. 2. The petitioner knowing well that the work has not been completed apprehended that the respondents may get the balance work executed through some other contractual agency at the risk and cost of the petitioner so has filed the instant petition seeking quashment of the letter dated 14.11.2018 with a further prayer to command the respondents to adhered to the agreement as entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. 3. Petitioner for completion of the Project had sought extension of three months time. 4. Now, the respondents appear to have considered the matter which resulted in formulation of views and comments on the construction of Water Supply System for Greater Raliang Water Supply Project wherein, it is mentioned that the petitioner has filed the petition and has stated that at this stage 90% of the Project is complete, therefore, petitioner requires only three additional months of time to complete the Project. Same has been taken by the Superintending Engineer in its right perspective. The additional three months time in principle has been granted for completion of the Project with a condition that payment for the cost of Pumping Machineries and Electro-Mechanical Work shall not be made prior to the supply, installation and commissioning of the same, has been done so as to avoid abandonment of the construction by the petitioner with a further condition, if the contractor fails to complete the Project within the additional three months time, penalty will be imposed. 5. Once 90% of the Project is complete, the respondents Superintending Engineer has taken a right decision in granting three months additional time to the petitioner for completing the Project. Therefore, apprehension of the petitioner that the Project will be got executed through other contractual agency is repelled. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, huge investment is required. Petitioner has already invested a lot, arrears are lying with the respondents Department. Therefore, apprehension of the petitioner that the Project will be got executed through other contractual agency is repelled. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, huge investment is required. Petitioner has already invested a lot, arrears are lying with the respondents Department. The respondents may be directed to release some due amount which will enable the petitioner to complete the Project within three months. 7. The petition in the context of its prayer clause in effect, does not now survive. Suffice it to say that the respondent Superintending Engineer shall consider release of some amount out of the arrears which according to the petitioner are lying with them for the work already executed. Same will help in achieving the objective in tune with the word employed by the Superintending Engineer in the views and comments as quoted hereunder, the whole aim and objective of the Government is to complete the project at the earliest. 8. In the aforesaid background, nothing further survives in this petition for consideration of this Court, therefore, accordingly disposed of. 9. Disposal of this writ petition in the aforesaid background shall not in any manner be construed as a bar to either parties in agitating their respective grievances viz-a-viz the Project. The right of the parties to have resort to arbitration clause of the agreement pertaining to the execution of the Project is not in any manner to be linked with disposal of this petition. 10. Copy of the views and comments prepared by the Superintending Engineer along with covering letter and the approval of the Government in total consisting of three leaves shall be made part of the records. 11. Disposed of as above.