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

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder prayer has been made to quash the decision of the

authorities, as contained in Memo No. 307 dated 12.03.2013 (Annexure 11), issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works

Division, Latehar by which the Agreement Nos. LAT 03/2008-09, LAT-06/2009-10 and LAT-08/2009-10 for the Package Nos. JH 1404, JH 1403

and JH 1407, have been rescinded with a decision to forfeit the security money deposited by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid agreements.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, by referring to order dated 22.10.2019 passed by this Court in I.A. No. 913 of 2017, that work has

already been completed by other contractor.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has submitted by referring to the stand taken in the counter affidavit that conscious decision

has been taken by the respondents-authorities for forfeiture of the earnest money by rescinding the agreements and, therefore, the only claim left for

its adjudication pertains to the legality and propriety of the decision taken by the respondents-authorities in forfeiting the earnest money.

In this regard, submission has been made by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner could not be able to complete the work as also

the maintenance work could not be completed in terms and conditions of the agreements and, therefore, the respondents left with no option rescinded

the agreements made in favour of petitioner with a decision to forfeit the security money deposited by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid

agreements.

In view thereof, the work has been allotted to other contractor, who has completed the work.

It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents-State that for recovery of the earnest money, a recovery case has been filed,

which is pending before the Recovery Officer, Latehar, as would be evident from supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents on

04.08.2017.

This Court, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondents, is of the view that since the claim of the

petitioner, at this stage, only pertains to the disbursement of the amount pertaining to earnest money, which has been forfeited in consonance with the

terms and agreements of the agreements in question and further it is evident from the stand taken by the respondents in the supplementary counter

affidavit that for recovery of the earnest money, a recovery case has been filed, which is pending before the Recovery Officer, Latehar, therefore for

such a disputed question of fact, no direction can be passed by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to make interference

with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to agitate the claim depending upon the outcome of the certificate proceeding.