M/s Chandra Construction v. 1.The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 19 of 2020 M/s Chandra Construction ..... Petitioner Versus 1.The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, Parivahan Bhawan,1, Parliament Street, New Delhi, P.O and P.S. Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2.Regional Officer, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, having its office at New Area, Datta Villa Road, near NTC, Morabadi, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi. 3.The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. 4.The Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Engineer’s Hostel, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 5.The Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, Engineer’s Building, 3rd Floor, Kutchery, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O and P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 6.The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Road Construction Department, Medininagar having its office at Jail Hata, near Railway Crossing, Daltonganj, P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, District- Palamau. ………. Respondents ---------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Aakansha Mittal, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Sr. Panel Council. For the Resp-State : Ms. Piyushita Meha Tudu, A.C. to AAG-IV -------- 08/01.02.2024 Heard Ms. Aakansha Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Sr. Penal Counsel Central Government appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 wherein the proposal for sanction of variation cost of Rs. 14, 81, 206/- pertaining to the work of widening and strengthening of pavement from Km. 119.00 to 127.00 Km of National Highway-75, has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for direction upon the respondent no.2 to grant approval to the proposal of variation amounting 2 to Rs. 14,81,206/- pertaining to the said work in view of the fact that the additional work has been carried out by the petitioner which was necessary for maintaining the quality of road pursuant to the direction issued by the Engineer-in- charge of the work in question. The petitioner has also prayed for payment of admitted due and payable amount of Rs. 14,81,206/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the work which was undertaken by the petitioner was not in variation but was a part of the tender and in fact the petitioner had filled up the potholes in order to maintain the quality of the road. It has further been submitted that though the petitioner had submitted the photocopy of the site order book but the same has been brushed aside and relying upon Clause-11 of F-2 of the contract, the claim of the petitioner for release of the variation cost of Rs.14, 81,206/- has been rejected. 4. Mr. S. K. Sharma learned Senior Panel Counsel Central Government has submitted that the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 has considered all aspects of the matter and in fact failure on the part of the petitioner to submit a written order from the competent authority with respect to the variation in work for which the bills were raised by the petitioner has further led to the rejection of its claim for amount of Rs.14,81,206/-. 5. The petitioner was allotted the work of widening and strengthening of pavement from K.M.119.00 to 127.00 K.M. of National Highway 75 vide letter no.418 dated 10.04.2008. The work was to be completed by 09.02.2009 but on account of certain exigency extension of time was granted for completion of the work and ultimately the same was completed on 05.11.2012. Certain variation in work related to filling potholes was also done by the petitioner but since the bills raised by the petitioner were not considered by the concerned 3 respondent he had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1900/16 which was disposed of on 16.07.2019 directing the respondent No.2 to take a decision upon the proposal of variation in the work of widening and strengthening of pavement from K.M.119.00 to 127.00 K.M. of National Highway 75 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.1900/16 the respondent no.2 has passed a reasoned order on 26.09.2019 with which the petitioner is aggrieved and which has constrained the petitioner to prefer the present writ application. Perusal of the reasoned order dated 26.09.2019 reveals that repeated opportunities were given to the petitioner to furnish copy of the written order of the then Engineer-in- Charge for the work of variation amounting to Rs.14,81,206/- but the same was not submitted, rather photocopy of the site order book was submitted, which however was found to be not acceptable and was not at all considered. It further appears that the reference has been made to clause 11 of F-2 contract wherein it has been specified that the contractor shall not be entitled to any payment for any additional work done unless he has received an order in writing from the Engineer-in-Charge for the additional work and further the contractor was bound to submit his claim for any additional work done during any month on or before the 15 days of the following month accompanied by a copy of the order in writing of the Engineer-in-Charge for the additional work. 6. Admittedly, there is no existence of any order in writing from the competent authority i.e. Engineer-in-Charge and in fact the claim of the petitioner for additional work done by him also seems to have been submitted at a belated stage. It would thus appears there is nothing on record to indicate that there was a specific order of the Engineer-in-Charge to 4 entrust the completion of the additional work to the petitioner and therefore the respondent no.2 taking recourse to clause 11 of F-2 contract has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for release of the amount of Rs.14,81,206/- which was claimed on account of the additional work purportedly performed by the petitioner. 7. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any illegality in the impugned reasoned order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 and consequently, the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/Amardeep/