Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 710 (HP)

Arun Azad v. State of H. P

2025-04-09

SUSHIL KUKREJA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- i) That a writ in nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued and the tender issued on dated 06-01-2025 (Annexure P-4) to the private respondent be quashed and set aside. ii) That the petitioner be allowed to complete the tender issued on dated 08-02-2023 by clearing the previous bills of this tender. iii) That the inquiry be initiated against the respondent no. 4 i.e. Executive Engineer Dharampur HPPPWD Division for issuing a tender of work which has already been completed by the present petitioner.” 2. On 02.04.2025, the Court passed the following order:- “On 27.03.2025, the Court passed the following order:- “Extremely serious allegations have been made in this petition with regard to the work already executed by the petitioner, which now has been awarded in favour of respondent No.5 by changing the name of head of the work. This indeed is a serious allegation. Therefore, in such circumstances, issue notice to the official respondents, at this stage. Mr. Raj Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. Let record of the case be produced on 01.04.2025.” 2. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the respondents have produced records, which prima facie go to indicate that the allegations levelled by the petitioner somewhat appear to be correct. 3. Therefore, let respondents No. 1 to 4 file their reply(ies)on the affidavit(s) sworn by respondent No. 3 i.e. Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Dharampur, District Mandi, within one week. 4. We make it clear that such affidavit, needless to say, shall be filed after thorough examination of the records in question. 5. List on 09.04.2025. In the meanwhile, dasti notice be issued for the service of respondent No. 5, returnable for the next date of hearing, on taking steps during the course of the day.” 3. The respondents have filed reply and it shall be apt to reproduce para 2 of the preliminary submissions, which read as under:- 2. That the respondents in response to the plea raised by the petitioner in his writ petition submits that the following works were awarded to the petitioner by the respondents vide different award letters: 1. The respondents have filed reply and it shall be apt to reproduce para 2 of the preliminary submissions, which read as under:- 2. That the respondents in response to the plea raised by the petitioner in his writ petition submits that the following works were awarded to the petitioner by the respondents vide different award letters: 1. C/o Giun Druman Banerdi Road 0/00 to 3/545 (near Ubek Jalpa Mata Road) (SH:F/C mtrs wide at RD 0/400 to 0/900). 2. C/o Giun Druman Banerdi Road 0/00 to 3/345 (near Ubek Jalpa Mata Road) (SH:F/C mtrs wide in KM 1/300 to 1/600). 3. C/o Giun Druman Banerdi Road 0/00 to 3/345 (near Ubek Jalpa Mata Road) (SH:F/C mtrs wide in KM 1/600 to 1/900). 4. C/o Link Road Giun Druman Banerdi in KM o/0 to 3/345 (Near Ubek Druman Bus Stand Jalpa Mata Road) (SH: F/C 5/7 mtrs wide in 2/400 to 2/900). 5. C/o Link road Giun Druman Banerdi in KM 0/0 to 3/345 (Near Ubek Druman Bus Stand Jalpa Mata Road) (SH: F/C 5/7 mtrs wide in 2/900 to 3/200). 6. C/o Link road Giun Druman Banerdi in KM 0/0 to 3/345 (Near Ubek Druman Bus Stand Jalpa Mata Road) (SH: F/C 5/7 mtrs wide in 3/200 to 3/345). The petitioner has competed the work mentioned at Sr. No. 1 & 2. He has done part work of Sr.No.3 from Rd.1/670 to 1/730 out of Rd. No. 1/600 to 1/900 and rest of the work have not been executed and completed by the petitioner. The stipulated period of completion of the work had already expired on 25.09.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to start the execution work mentioned at Sr.No.4 to 6 till date while the same has been awarded to him vide award dated. 08.02.2023, 15.02.2023, and 15.02.2023. The copies of award dated Qua the Sr.No.4 to 6 are attached herewith as FILED TODA ANNEXURE R-1 to R-III for the perusal 08 APR of this Hon'ble Court. The time period specified for execution of work has been already expired 21.03.2023, 30.04.20213 and 30.04.2023. He has never been applied for extension of time for the execution of work nor the same has replying respondent has ever been extended the time for execution of work and the work was not completed by the petitioner. The time period specified for execution of work has been already expired 21.03.2023, 30.04.20213 and 30.04.2023. He has never been applied for extension of time for the execution of work nor the same has replying respondent has ever been extended the time for execution of work and the work was not completed by the petitioner. During the year 2024, the work of construction of link road named Kumarda to Janltri Mata Temple via Chir-Ubhak in ESTELKM 0/510 to 1/525 was awarded to Sh.Sanjay Kumar, respondent No.5 for an amount of Rs.3,46,739/- vide award letter dated 12.11.2024. Further the work of construction of link road named Kumarda to Jainitri Mata Temple via Chir Ubhak in KM 0/0 to 3/0 (SH:- F/C 5/7 mtrs. wide at Km 1/765 to 2/045 was also awarded to respondent No.5 vide award letter dated 06.01.2025 for an amount of Rs. 5,17,195/-The aforesaid work were to be executed under Mukhya Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. As the name of the work and the road in respect of which the work was awarded to respondent No.5 were different, but in fact the road was the same in respect of which the petitioner was awarded 6 no. works. At the time of preparation of the DNIT and completion of the tendering process and issue award of letter, the fact that the workon the stretch of the road which was awarded to respondent No.5 have already been awarded to the petitioner who has not executed and completed the same, was not noticed by the concerned officer inadvertently and award letters were issued by the concerned officer in favour of respondent No.5. In fact the post of Executive Engineer was being held by different Executive Engineer(s) at the time of award of works to the petitioner and subsequent award of work to respondent No.5. In view of this fact also the fact that the work stands already awarded to the petitioner could not be noticed by the respondent No.4 as he was post at HP.PWD Division Dharampur on 18.1.2025 and has joined on 20.01.2025. In view of this fact also the fact that the work stands already awarded to the petitioner could not be noticed by the respondent No.4 as he was post at HP.PWD Division Dharampur on 18.1.2025 and has joined on 20.01.2025. This fact came to the notice of respondents only when the petitioner filed the instant before this Hon'ble court Thereafter the records were minutely examined and it was noticed on examination of the record that the name of the work which was awarded to the petitioner and the name of work which was awarded to respondent No.5 were different though the work was to be executed on the different stretch of the same road under MMGSY. After noticing this fact, the respondent No.4 took prompt action and cancelled the tenders which were awarded to respondent No.5 on dated 12.11.2024 and 06.01.2025 vide office order dated 03.04.2025. The copies of the orders whereby the works awarded to respondent No.5 have been cancelled are annexed as Annexure R-IV & R-V. Further as these works were already awarded to the petitioner, therefore, vide letter dated 03.04.2025, the petitioner has been directed to restart and execute and complete the works. The respondents shall ensure that the work awarded to the petitioner is completed in time bound manner and on failure of the petitioner to execute and complete the same, the action in accordance with terms of the agreement shall be initiated against de petitioner by the respondents. It is further submitted that the show cause notice has been issued to the erring officers to the lapsed committed by them. The copy of the same is annexed as herewith as ANNEXURE R-VI-VII. In view of the aforesaid facts, the grievances raised by the petitioner stands redressed and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.” 4. It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid reply that some works already executed by the petitioner had again been awarded to respondent No.5. This being the conceded position, obviously, it cannot be said to be an innocent exercise undertaken by the official respondents. Definitely, the facts as set out in the reply are something much more than what meets the eyes. 5. We have been informed at the Bar that an inquiry has already been ordered to be initiated against Mr. J.P. Nayar, the then, Executive Engineer. Definitely, the facts as set out in the reply are something much more than what meets the eyes. 5. We have been informed at the Bar that an inquiry has already been ordered to be initiated against Mr. J.P. Nayar, the then, Executive Engineer. Once that be so, obviously, no further orders are required to be passed in the instant petition, more particularly, when the petition has already been rendered infructuous, in view of the subsequent events. 6. It goes without saying that the inquiry initiated against the aforesaid Executive Engineer shall be taken to its logical end as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31st July, 2025. 7. Since the petitioner has completed some of the works and has already submitted two bills, therefore, we direct the respondents to release the amount, if not total, then atleast some substantial portion thereof before the next date fixed for compliance. 8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.For compliance, list on 4th August, 2025.