M/S B.V.S.R. Construction Private Limited vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder order dated 09.04.2013, as contained in memo no. 526,

by which agreement entered into in between the petitioner and the respondent being Agreement No. 01-SBD/2012-13 dated 19.10.2012 for the work

of widening and strengthening of Hatia-Lodma-Karra-Khunti Road from Km. 4.00 to 46.76 Km. has been re-terminated.

Ground of assailing the aforesaid order is the violation of principles of natural justice as also no specific reason has been assigned therein.

It is evident from the materials available on record that the original agreement is of the year 2012-13 for execution of the work in question, which

was to be completed within the period of 24 months.

It further appears from the order dated 21.11.2019 and 25. 11.2019 passed by this Court that the matter was adjourned on the request of learned

counsel for the petitioner to seek instruction in the matter.

Today, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Mr. Piyush Chitresth that no instruction has been received since he has

no contact with the petitioner.

Despite repeated call, none appears for the respondents-State of Jharkhand.

Admittedly, the period of completion of work, as per the agreement No. 01-SBD/2012-13 dated 19.10.2012 was 24 months.

It appears from the impugned order that earlier the agreement, which is the subject matter of present writ petition, was terminated vide decision, as

contained in memo no. 3171 dated 20.12.2012 but the same was been recalled vide order dated 05.01.2013 on the undertaking given by the

contractor/petitioner for speedy execution of the work, but as would appear from the impugned order that even in spite of agreement having been

revived, the progress of the work was not as per the schedule, therefore, the impugned decision for re-terminating the contract has been passed,

which is impugned in this writ petition.

This Court, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and going across the stand taken by the State as also the fact that the work was to be

completed within the period of 24 months starting from 19.10.2012, which has expired on 18.10.2014, hence considering the expiry of the period of

completion of the work even if the impugned order would be interfered with no benefit can be availed by the petitioner.

Further, the agreement has been re-terminated and even if it would be revived the period of work since has been expired, therefore, no purpose would

be served.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination of the agreement would cause prejudice to the petitioner in consideration of

allotment of the future work.

But according to considered view of this Court since agreement itself has been re-terminated, having not been said, save and except re-

termination of the agreement, therefore, there is no question of causing any stigma on the petitioner.

It further appears from the impugned order that no order of blacklisting or forfeiture of the earnest money or security deposit has been passed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may be given liberty to approach before the competent authority for refund

of the security deposit or earnest money.

This Court finds from the impugned order that in the impugned order there is no such decision about forfeiture of termination of the security

deposit or the earnest money.

As such, it is left open for the petitioner to approach before the competent authority for its consideration in accordance with law, if no such decision

has been taken by the authority.

If such application/representation is filed by the petitioner, the authority will consider the same and shall pass appropriate order in accordance with

law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.