AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Sharma,J.
1.By way of letter petition, addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court, petitioner, who is a student and is a resident of village Dol, Tehsil Joginder
Nagar, District Mandi, highlighted the issue with regard to poor quality of work executed by the contractor while carrying out tarring/mettaling of
Gadyara-Dol-Chho road at Joginder Nagar, Mandi, H.P. Alongwith petition, letter petitioner also annexed news item published on 14th April, 2018 in a
daily Hindi newspaper, “Punjab Kesariâ€, under caption, “Tarring Ke 20 Din Baad Sadak Per Ugi Ghasâ€. Letter petitioner alleged that Public
Works Department (for short ‘PWD’) had awarded work to Government Contractor; namely; Prem Pal in March, 2018 for tarring/mettaling of
road, referred hereinabove, but, interestingly, within a period of 15 days from the completion of aforesaid work done by respondent No.6, grass started
sprouting on tarred surface in some portion. Letter petitioner alleged that respondent No.6, while tarring/metalling the road in question, failed to lay
proper layer of stone and grit before putting charcoal. She also alleged that workers engaged by respondent No.6 laid charcoal on the surface without
removing dist/soil from the road, as a consequence of which, grass started sprouting within a period of 15 days of completion of work in question.
After having carefully perused averments contained in the letter petition as well as news item published in newspaper, this Court, while registering
the letter petition as Public Interest Litigation, directed learned Additional Advocate General to ascertain the factual position and furnish the particulars
of the contractor, who executed such work. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 2.5.2018, impleaded the contractor; namely Prem Lal as party
respondent No.6.
Superintending Engineer, Joginder Nagar Circle, HPPWD Joginder Nagar in his affidavit acknowledged the factum with regard to sprouting of
grass on the road in question on some stretches of road. Officer, referred hereinabove, further stated before this Court by way of affidavit that tarring
work was executed by respondent No.6 as per HPPWD specifications and work was completed successfully on 23.3.2018 under the supervision of
Junior Engineer, Neri Section Sub Division Lad Bharol. He further stated that one week after completion of work, site was inspected by Junior
Engineer, who had observed that grass started sprouting on tarred surface in some portion and accordingly directed contractor respondent No.6 to
rectify the deffects. It has also been stated in the affidavit that department also inspected the site to find out the reasons of sprouting of grass on some
stretches on the road and came to the conclusion that the main reason of sprouting grass on the road was due to water logged area and having clayey
formation. As per Superintending Engineer, quality of work executed by respondent No.6 has been found to be good and well within prescribed limits.
It has further been stated in the affidavit that tarring process though was completed on 26.3.2018, but rainfall occurred on 28.3.2018, 6.4.2018,
7.4.2018 and 8.4.2018 and the rain water pounded in the existing water logged area, as a consequence of which, grass sprouted on tarred surface. As
per affidavit, department started the construction of Katcha side drain, but the local villagers of Dol, Gadyara and Chho did not allow the construction
of side drain, due to which the rain water remained pounded on the tarred surface and grass sprouted on tarred surface in the aforementioned
stretches, not on the entire length of this road. It has further been stated in the affidavit that whole tarred surface, including area where grass sprouted
is intact, without any pot holes, ruts and the traffic is plying smoothly without any inconvenience to the commuters.
Taking note of the fact that very poor quality of work was executed by respondent No.6 and no supervision was conducted by the authority
concerned, this Court, while directing private respondent No.6 to file affidavit, also called upon Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Joginder Nagar
to remain present in the Court.
Today, during the proceedings of the case, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Joginder Nagar apprised this Court that defects noticed on the
aforesaid stretches have been rectified, as per direction issued by the Engineer-in-charge, and fresh tarring/mettaling has been done on the road as per
HPPWD specifications. Executive Engineer also invited our attention to the photographs to demonstrate that after having noticed defects, as have
been noticed hereinabove, respondent No.6-contractor was called upon to rectify the same, who has redone tarring/metalling work after laying proper
layer of stone and grit. Though this Court having perused affidavit filed by Superintending Engineer and private contractor respondent No.6, finds that
damage caused to the road in question has been cured by respondent No.6 by doing fresh tarring/mettaling work, but it is not understood that how
within a period of 15 days grass sprouted on mettalled/tarred road. Interestingly, department concerned, instead of taking action against erring
officers/officials, has made an attempt to justify their action by stating that work has been done by respondent No.6 as per specifications and there
was no defect in the same at the time of completion. Had the authorities concerned bothered to ensure proper laying of stone/grit before
tarring/mettaling, grass would not have sprouted on the road. Explanation rendered on record by the department for sprouting of grass is neither
plausible nor can be accepted because it is the duty of official/officer, who was supervising the work, to ensure that work of road is done strictly as
per specifications and not on the whims and fences of the contractor.
Having taken note of the fact that defects have been cured by respondent No.6 on his own expenses, this Court sees no reason to keep the present
petition alive, but before parting, we wish to observe that the authorities responsible for getting the work executed need to be more vigilant, cautious
and responsible, so far as execution of work by private contractors is concerned, because public money cannot be allowed to be wasted. Secretary
(PWD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as Engineer - in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla are directed to issue necessary directions/guidelines
to the officers/officials concerned, responsible for getting the work executed, to ensure quality of work to be executed by the private contractors and
in case they fail to get the work done, as per specifications, they should be held personally liable and costs incurred on repair/damages should also be
recovered from their salaries.
Necessary affidavit of compliance shall be filed by the aforesaid authorities i.e. Secretary(PWD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and
Engineer-in-Chief within a period of two weeks from the receipt of copy of the judgment in the Registry of this Court.
We fully appreciate initiative taken by letter petitioner, who, being a vigilant resident of the area, not only highlighted the poor quality of work done
by the contractor on the road in question, but also set up an example to other persons, who, while taking note of such irregularities and illegalities
committed by the government officers/officials, may approach the authorities so that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials/officers.
We also wish to place on record appreciation qua the efforts put in by Mr.Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, who, on the instructions of
this Court, contacted letter petitioner and obtained necessary feed back.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Secretary (PWD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Engineer-in-Chief,
HPPWD, Shimla for necessary action at their end.