CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

M/s Bansal Construction vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 21 April 2023 · Citation: (2023) 04 UK CK 0072

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, CJ · Alok Kumar Verma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/B) No. 49 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 347 words

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1.

Issue notice. Learned counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned letter dated 15.04.2023 issued by respondent no.2.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/ directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to complete the work within the time framed stipulated in the letter dated 16.04.2023.”

3.

The petitioner has been awarded the work of reconstruction of road from Parmarth Niketan to Janki Setu in Swargashram Area. Under the contract, the time available to the contractor to complete the work is 19.06.2023. The petitioner was further required to complete the work by 26.05.2023. The respondents sought to bring forward the date of completion of work to 10.05.2023. The petitioner sent a letter on 19.04.2023 to respondent no.2 pointing several hindrances in executing the work. According to the petitioner clear site has not been made available to the petitioner by the respondents.

4.

The respondents issued the impugned communication dated 15.04.2023 pointing out several lapses on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the work and also calling upon the petitioner to participate in taking of final measurements on 16.04.2023. Another communication was issued on 16.04.2023, stating that the final measurements had been taken in the absence of the petitioner, or its representative since none turned up for the same.

5.

A perusal of the communication dated 15.04.2023 shows that the respondents probably intended to terminate the contract. However, there is no termination of the contract affected by the respondents till date. Since the right of the parties arises out of their contract, we are not inclined to go into the disputed questions of fact in the present petition.

6.

We, therefore, leave the parties to work out of their rights and obligations under the contract.

7.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

8.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.