High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 12 PAT CK 0001

The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Cum vs M/s Remkey Infrastructure Ltd.

Patna High Court · Decided on 4 December 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
RESULT
Disposed off
CASE NUMBER
1192 of 2016

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

34 paragraphs · 364 words
1.

Having heard learned Additional Advocate General No.

IV representing the State and learned counsel representing the

private respondent Nos. 1 & 2, we are of the opinion that, in a larger

public interest and good, the fresh award of contract, on the basis of

tender notice dated 26.03.2015 in favour of private respondent No.

2, who has done some significant amount of work ever since the

work was allotted to them, is not required to be interfered with.

2.

The Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the

building in question has a public purpose of putting a training

institute for the State of Bihar which after bifurcation does not have

an institution of the kind. The initial tender was invited in the year

2009, contract was executed in the year 2010 and rather unfortunate

that till 2017 the building is still under construction.

3.

The Court does not want to go into the issue, as to

who was to blame, keeping in mind that Court is giving liberty to the

private respondent No. 1 to invoke jurisdiction of the Arbitration

Tribunal, which leeway respondent No. 1 was given by the High Court

in C.W.J.C. No. 9327/2013, and has been also taken note of and

explained by the learned Single Judge in his somewhat concluding

part of the order.

4.

The only clarification which is required to be made is

that the question of black-listing of the private respondent-the

petitioner and the liability which will come upon him due to re- tendering etc. will be subject matter of the arbitration proceeding

before the Tribunal. However, the work assigned to the respondent

No. 2, must carry on and respondent No. 2 will be well-advised to

ensure that there is no omission on their part in completing the

contract within a time frame.

5.

Both these appeals are disposed off in the light of the

observation made above.

6.

Before parting, it is made clear that the competent

and the concerned authority has an obligation to release the funds in

favour of M/s Kashish Developers Limited, timely, so that the

contract is executed and the institution becomes functional at the

shortest possible time now.