Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 311 (MEG)

SD Construction v. Union of India

2022-11-22

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT : H.S. THANGKHIEW, J. 1. By way of this writ application the petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to not prematurely cancel the contract awarded to the petitioner No. 1, on the ground that the notices which have been impugned herein, run contrary to the arrangements that had been reached by the petitioner and the respondents in the meeting held on 09.06.2022. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that without adhering to the time limit as allowed, the respondents by letter dated 23.09.2022 have cancelled the said contract. 2. Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioners firstly has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 24.06.2022, wherein it has been recorded and indicated therein, that pursuant to the conference held on 09.06.2022, the writ petitioner was called upon to accelerate the progress of the work, and it was agreed on the request of the writ petitioner, that extension be allowed till 31.12.2022, to complete the work. The learned Senior counsel submits that in spite of this clear assurance and agreement arrived at with the respondents, by the impugned letter dated 23.09.2022, the contract was cancelled. Without going into the other claims, he submits that the cancellation in the face of the letter dated 24.06.2022, is patently illegal and is liable to be set aside. 3. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSG assisted by Mr. B. Shangrit, learned counsel, has placed reliance on the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, to show that that the decision arrived at was due to the fact that in spite of the concession, given to the writ petitioner, the progress of the work remained unsatisfactory. The records have been produced today before this Court and the learned DSG, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Minutes of the meeting held on 09.06.2022, and submits that the decision of the Additional Director General as contained in the Minutes though allowing for a prescribed, realistic time frame, it also inserted a rider that the progress of the work was to be closely monitored on a weekly basis, and any recommendation for cancellation of the subject contract was to be indicated by 10.07.2022, by the Chief Engineer (respondent No. 2). He therefore, submits that due to the tardy progress of the work, and as the matter concerns a Defense Installation, and further that enough concession had been given to the writ petitioner, the respondents were constrained to cancel the subject contract. Reference has also been made by the learned DSG to the letters dated 14.07.2022 and 05.08.2022, to show that the respondents were monitoring the work and that the progress was observed to be dismal, which therefore resulted in the impugned action. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. From the perusal of the records, it is correct that extension of time up to 31.12.2022, for completion of the contract was granted to the writ petitioner, pursuant to the meeting held on 09.06.2022, but it is also correct that a condition was given therein that the progress of the work was to be closely monitored on a weekly basis, and that the Chief Engineer (respondent No. 2) was to intimate by 10.07.2022, as to the necessary course of action. 6. From the records as produced and also from the affidavit, it is noted that by letter dated 20.06.2022 at Para 3(e), it has been clearly stated that the work was to be completed by 31.12.2022 in all respects, and in case no progress is observed by 10.07.2022, actions as deemed suitable would be initiated for completion of the work. The next letter i.e. dated 05.07.2022 is also on the same lines, which reflects the stand of the respondents with regard to the progress of the work and also the threat for cancellation. The next letter which is of importance dated 05.08.2022, addressed to the petitioner, also clearly stated that the noncompliance of instructions and the present status of the work, was that the Project was not likely to be completed within the stipulated time. Finally, it appears after all these observations, the impugned order dated 23.09.2022, was issued cancelling the contract. 7. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the matter at hand, and it is seen that the only case put up by the petitioner is that, though a concession was given that the Project be completed by 31.12.2022, the same was cancelled on 23.09.2022, in spite of the understanding that coercive action if any, was to be taken by 10.07.2022. 8. 8. An examination of the documents as mentioned earlier i.e. letter dated 20.06.2022, 24.06.2022, 14.07.2022 and 05.08.2022 which illustrate the chain of events however does not reflect any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, but rather show that extra concessions were made by them, even though the date as decided in the meeting for taking action was 10.07.2022. Further, it is apparent, that in spite of the concession, the progress of the work was still very tardy which occasioned the cancellation. It is to be noted that the Project concerns a Defense Installation and in such projects, the essence of time should not be forgotten. 9. The action of the respondents therefore being found not suffering from any illegality or arbitrariness, and the impugned order being based on the materials and the assessment of the respondents on the progress of work, no interference is called for and this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 10. Needless to add, the writ petitioner is at liberty to seek other alternative remedy under the contract. 11. There is no order as to costs.