Tripurari Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 1037 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3784 of 2022
     ======================================================

Tripurari Prasad Singh, Son of Late Kartik Narayan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Bhikhanpura Narayan Bhawan, P.O.- Head Post Muzaffarpur, P.S.- Muzaffarpur Sadar Thana, Dist- Muzaffarpur, Pin- 842001.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Tourism Department, Old Secretariat, Patna- 15.

2. The Principal Secretary, Tourism Department, Old Secretariat, Patna- 15.

3. Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. of Bihar Undertaking) through the Managing Director, Beerchand Patel Path, Kautilya Hotel, Patna- 800001.

4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

(A Govt. of Bihar Undertaking), Beerchand Patel Path, Kautilya Hotel, Patna- 800001.

5. The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. of Bihar Undertaking), Beerchand Patel Path, Kautilya Hotel, Patna- 800001.

6. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

(A Govt. of Bihar Undertaking), Beerchand Patel Path, Kautilya Hotel, Patna- 800001.

7. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, Govt. of India, Room No.109, Transport Bhawan, 1 Parliament Street, New Delhi- 1100011.

8. The Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, Govt. of India, Room No. 109, Transport Bhawan, 1 Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110011.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr.Manish Sahay, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Radhika Raman, CGC Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, Avocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhaskar, AC to GP-11 For the BSTDC : Mr. Kumar Abhimanyu Pratap, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA)

Date : 17-03-2023 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Initially, the present writ petition has been filed

claiming the following reliefs :-

"(I) For after quashing of rescinding order of contract, issued vide Memo No. 41/Engg./2018/61/ Eng/ 2022 dated 28.01.2022 as well as fresh NIT No. 15/ E-

Tender/ BSTDC/ SBD/ 2021-22 dated 15.02.2022, as contained in Annexure P-4 & P- 11, directing the concerned respondent either allow the petitioner to complete the balance work in question within 2 (Two) months from the date of allow to do so Or direct them to pay all contractual amount with relates to bill of work done including entire amount of security deposit and deducted amount of Time Extension etc. (II) For restraining the respondents for taking any coercive steps against the petitioner as well as creating third party right relates to fresh tender during pendency of this writ application.

(III) For declaring that the actions of the respondents are arbitrariness, malafide, malicious, colourable exercise of power. (IV) For further passing such an Order or Orders for which the petitioner is entitled under the law in the facts and circumstances of this case".

Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

3. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory

application bearing I.A. No.1 of 2022 for amendment in the

instant writ petition by adding following relief in para 1 of the

instant writ petition :

"(V) For quashing of Notice for inviting very short Re-Tender No.16/E-Tender/BSTDC/ SBD of 2021-22 dated 25.02.2022 read with its corrigendum issued vide letter no.212/Engg/2022 dated 07.03.2022 as contained in Annexure-P-13 series because without preparing final bill in presence of the petitioner, the respondent Chief Engineer (i.e. Respondent No.5) has invited re-tender for "Remaining Work of Development of Them Park at Bhitiharwa, West Champaran, under Gandhi Circuit".

4. Again, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory

application bearing I.A. No.2 of 2022 for amendment in the

instant writ petition by adding following relief in para 1 of the

instant writ petition :

"(VI) For quashing of Notice for inviting very short Re-Tender No.17/E-Tender/BSTDC/ SBD of 2021-22 dated 14.03.2022 as contained in Annexure-P-14 because without preparing final bill in presence of the petitioner, the respondent Chief Engineer (i.e.

Respondent No.5) has invited re-tender for Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

"Remaining Work of Development of Them Park at Bhitiharwa, West Champaran, under Gandhi Circuit for estimated cost of Rs.710.54 lacs".

5. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory

application bearing I.A. No.3 of 2022 for impleading Mr. Saroj

Narayan Prasad Singh, son of not known, resident of Mohalla-

Habibpura, Barara, P.O. +P.S.-Sohsarai, District-Nalanda as a

party respondent no.9 in the instant writ petition on the ground

that during pendency of the instant writ petition, the respondent

Corporation has created 3rd party interest in terms of liberty

granted by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2022. However,

vide order dated 05.07.2022, the said interlocutory application

has been dismissed as withdrawn as the same has lost its

significance.

6. Again, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory

application bearing I.A. No.4 of 2022 for amendment in the

instant writ petition by adding following relief in para 1 of the

instant writ petition :

"(VII) For quashing of Memo No. 07/16/Engg./Ac/19/ 933/ Engg./2022 dated 27.09.2022 read with Memo No. 07/07/ Engg./Ac/18-19/ 935 / Engg./ 2022 dated 28.09.2022, as contained in Annexure-P-19 Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

series, issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer (i.e. Respondent No.6) whereby and whereunder the said authority has passed the adjustment and payment order in terms of rescinding order dated 28.01.2022 as contained in Annexure-P/4 at page-111 in most arbitrary manner and contrary to provision of agreement in question".

7. The short facts, according to the petitioner, are that

pursuant to a Re-Tender Notice dated 10.07.2018 issued for

construction and development of theme park (with cafeteria and

tourist amenities) at Bhitiharwa West Champaran under Gandhi

Circuit for the year 2018-19 at an estimated cost of Rs.1637.9

lacs, which has been corrected and sanctioned for

Rs.11,99,02,000/- within 15 months from the date of work

order, the petitioner participated in the tender process and the

said work was finally allotted in favour of the petitioner in

accordance with law @ 5.40% below on estimated costs. On

06.03.2019, a Letter of Acceptance was issued in favour of the

petitioner. Thereafter, on 09.03.2019, Agreement No.

18/SBD/2018-19 was entered and executed among the parties

for agreement value of Rs.11,43,27,292/-. A work order was also

issued vide letter no. 241 dated 09.03.2019 for completing the

said work within 15 months, i.e., on or before 08.06.2020 which Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

was extended up-to 15.02.2022. The petitioner had completed

almost 50% of work as per agreement and only finishing work

was left to be completed. Vide letter dated 28.01.2022,

agreement of the petitioner has been terminated alleging breach

of contract and entire Performance and Additional Performance

Security has been forfeited besides that Risk and Cost upon the

petitioner has also been imposed before the extended date of

completion of work i.e. 15.02.2022. The petitioner had

submitted his 8th Running Account Bill amounting to

Rs.5,29,82,114/- and it is not in dispute that till 7th R/A Bill, the

petitioner has received a payment of Rs.2,94,85,988/- and a sum

of Rs.2,34,96,126/- is pending for making payment to the

petitioner by the respondent Corporation after checking and

passing of the same. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a

representation on 31.01.2022 with a request to allow him to

complete the balance work till 31.03.2022 after recalling the

rescinding order dated 28.01.2022. Lastly, the respondent Chief

Engineer has issued very short Tender No.15/E-Tender/BSTDC/

SBD/2021-22 for execution of balance work amounting to

Rs.845.10 lacs. Subsequently, the balance work has been

assigned to a third party. Hence, the present Writ.

8. At the outset, the learned senior counsel appearing Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that though the dispute

is arising out of the contractual obligation and termination of

contract by the respondents, concerning the issues involved, the

writ petition is maintainable. The learned senior counsel further

submitted that the instant petition has been filed against the

illegal act of the respondent no.3 as he rescinded the contract

with the petitioner vide order dated 28.01.2022, but the said

order is itself illegal. The contract has been terminated by the

respondent no.3 on directions of his higher authorities and since

the respondent no.3 has not applied his independent mind to the

facts of the case, the order dated 28.01.2022 cannot be said to be

an order passed by the respondent no.3 on his own. Hence, the

termination of the contract is wrong and incorrect and it is

unlawful. So a legal issue is involved in this case which can be

agitated before the writ Court. In support of this contention, he

has placed reliance on the following decisions :

(i) 2023 SCC Online SC 116 (Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Ors.)

(ii) 2021 SCC Online SC 99 (Unitech Limited & Ors. Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and Ors.)

(iii) (2021) 6 SCC 15 ( Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. CG Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

Power & Industrial Solutions Ltd. & anr.)

(iv) (2011) 5 SCC 697 (Union of India & Ors.

Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)

(v) (2022) 2 PLJR 161 ( M/s Sanjeev Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)

(vi) (1991) 1 PLJR 352 (FB) ( M/s Pancham Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)

(vii) (2015) 13 SCC 592 (Ram Barai Singh & Company Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.)

(viii) (2004) 3 SCC 553 (ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.)

(ix) (2010) 11 SCC 557 (Manohar Lal Vs. Ugrasen & Ors.)

9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further

submitted that the petitioner had started execution of works at

war footing but due to some hindrance/obstruction which came

during the execution period, he could not achieve the milestone

for that the petitioner was not responsible. In spite of that, the

Executive Engineer has passed the order of

termination/rescinding on 28.01.2022 without applying his

independent mind. The learned counsel further submitted that

when the Executive Engineer himself admits in the rescinding

order dated 28.01.2022 that time for completing the remaining

work was extended till 15.02.2022, but he has taken coercive Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

action against the petitioner before such extended date of

completion. The learned senior counsel further submitted that

from perusal of the rescinding order dated 28.01.2022 issued by

the Executive Engineer, it is quite clear that he himself admit

that over the work site, there were several obstructions till

September 2021 and it is also not in dispute that required

designs for the said project was provided to the petitioner on

three earlier occasions by the consultant. So the petitioner was

not in breach of contract and he is not responsible for any kind

of delay because situation was beyond his control. The learned

senior counsel further submitted that the order terminating the

contract dated 28.01.2022 has been passed against the

established canons of law. From paragraph 6 of the aforesaid

order, it is clear that the Executive Engineer has passed the order

on the directions of the Minister, Tourism Department,

Secretary, Tourism Department, Managing Director, Bihar State

Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Patna and the

concerned Chief Engineer as they directed him to rescind the

contract of the petitioner and put his name in the blacklist. Thus,

the Executive Engineer has not applied his independent mind

prior to rescinding the contract of the petitioner.

Moreover, once the time for completion of remaining Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

work was extended till 15.02.2022, the respondent no.6 could

not have taken coercive action against the petitioner before the

end of the extended date and in this regard, the petitioner relied

on the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Arjun

Singh & Co. Vs. the Union of India & Ors., reported in PLJR

2008 (2) 485.

10. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the

petitioner has submitted his 8th Running Account Bill amounting

to Rs.5,29,82,114/- and it is not in dispute that till 7 th R/A Bill,

the petitioner has received a payment of Rs.2,94,85,988/- and a

sum of Rs.2,34,96,126/- is pending for making payment to the

petitioner by the respondent Corporation after checking and

passing of the same. The learned senior counsel further

submitted that on earlier occasion, the respondent-Chief

Engineer (respondent no.5) had invited tender for balance work

vide NIT No.15/ E-Tender/ BSTDC/ SBD/ 2021-22 dated

15.02.2022. Thereafter, all of a sudden, the respondents had

issued fresh NIT No. 16/E-Tender/BSTDC/SBD of 2021-22

dated 25.02.2022 for the said remaining work, which was

cancelled and another NIT No.17/E-Tender/BSTDC/SBD of

2021-22 dated 14.03.2022 has been issued for remaining work.

11. The learned senior counsel further submitted that Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

during the pendency of this writ application, the Executive

Engineer passed payment and adjustment orders dated

27.09.2022 and 28.09.2022 by which he has adjusted risk and

cost amount of Rs.1,60,49,675.52/- from the payment of the

petitioner's liabilities. From perusal of the said payment order

dated 27.09.2022, it appears that out of bill amount of

Rs.5,29,82,114/-, the respondents have admitted only

Rs.4,42,95,726/- and balance claimed amount of Rs.86,86,388/-

has been refused without assigning any reason and at no point of

time, they have given any opportunity to the petitioner to justify

his bill/claimed amount. Hence, the petitioner would also be

entitled for the said balance amount of work done for the ends

of justice. Besides that, the petitioner deserves refund of entire

security deposit amounting to Rs.52,13,659/- and deducted

amount of 'Time Extension' i.e. Rs.14,80,974/- and deposited

amount of earnest money i.e. Rs. 22,90,000/- along with interest

@ 18% over entire payable amount from the date of said

rescinding order and till the date of its realization. From perusal

of adjustment order dated 28.09.2022, it appears that the

respondents have adjusted risk and cost amount of

Rs.1,60,49,675.52/- from the payable amount of

Rs.1,67,65,256/- and rest payable amount i.e. Rs.7,15,580/- was Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

kept pending till lapse of defect liability period, which was three

years after the date of completion.

12. The learned senior counsel further submitted that

the contract of the petitioner could not be terminated and

forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of cost could take

place under Clause 3 (7) (a & b) of the contract only for breach

of contract admitted by the petitioner and otherwise not. In the

instant case, the petitioner has not admitted breach of contract.

So, the rescinding order dated 28.01.2022 is illegal and against

the specific terms of the contract and, therefore, his entire

security deposit/Additional Performance Security/ Performance

Security deposit/deducted amount of Time Extension and other

lawful amount including work done amount relating to the said

agreement be paid to the petitioner without any further delay.

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondents has submitted that the instant writ petition filed by

the petitioner suffers from vice of multiple reliefs in one case, so

it is not maintainable on the factual aspects of the matter and on

the point of law. Hence, it may be dismissed on this count itself.

He has further submitted that the petitioner has approached this

Court by ignoring and neglecting the provisions of alternative

remedy given under clause 25 of the contract which provides for Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

arbitration in case of dispute. Both the parties of the contract are

bound by its provisions and mandate of the contract at first

place and must not be allowed to jump over the provisions of

the contract. Therefore, this writ petition which has been filed

without exhausting alternative remedy provided under the

contract is fit to be dismissed on this point of law alone. The

learned counsel further submitted that tender has been awarded

to one Saroj Narayan Prasad Singh being successful bidder and

letter of acceptance dated 22.04.2022 has been issued to him

and approx 25% of work has been completed by the said

contractor. The learned counsel further submitted that the

Tourism Ministry, Govt. of India vide letter dated 07.01.2022

had clearly directed that if the whole project including all

components was not finished up to 31.03.2022 then rest amount

would not be granted by the Government of India, rather the

same would have to be borne by the State Government of Bihar

which would have badly affected the image of Bihar

Government besides creating unnecessary financial liabilities on

public money of the State of Bihar. The learned counsel further

submitted that the petitioner has been given twenty months extra

time to complete the work, but he has never taken interest to

abide the conditions incorporated in the agreement and extended Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

time to complete the work within time limit stipulated. Though

there was some practical and technical problems at initial stage,

but the same were resolved by the respondents authorities at the

earliest. The petitioner has been warned several times earlier for

slow pace of work, but he kept making false promise to the

respondents. The petitioner had given an affidavit and a letter,

both dated 04.08.2021 to the effect that he would complete the

work by December, 2021, still he failed to keep up his promise

given on affidavit. The other contractors, who were facing the

same conditions and working in the same campus, had executed

and completed their work within the stipulated time limit. The

project was delayed and remained incomplete due to

lackadaisical approach of the petitioner only, which compelled

the respondents to take strong action against the petitioner and,

as such, the respondent no.6 vide letter dated 11.12.2021 issued

show cause to the petitioner as to why the contract be not

rescinded and why not he be blacklisted for failure to complete

the work. The learned counsel further submitted that a

supervision meeting was conducted by the Principal Secretary,

Tourism Department on 16.12.2021 in which the petitioner was

also present. The authorities expressed their displeasure in

strong terms and sought explanation from the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

whereupon the petitioner asked for some extra time up to

15.02.2022 to complete the work. The Principal Secretary

directed the respondent no.2 BSTDC to supervise the work

being done by the contractor on regular basis and if satisfactory

progress was not found, then to take steps to blacklist the

petitioner-contractor by publishing short tender notice. In terms

of the aforesaid direction of the Principal Secretary, the

technical team visited the site on 27.12.2021 and 16.01.2022

wherein no satisfactory progress was found to draw inference

that project would be completed within third extra time given to

the petitioner. In the supervision meeting of the Principal

Secretary dated 20.01.2022, it was found that progress of work

was not satisfactory enough to suggest the completion of work

within extra time of 15.02.2022 and, accordingly, the Executive

Engineer passed a detailed order dated 28.01.2022 after

considering all aspects of the case and thereby rescinded the

contract and forfeited the entire performance and additional

performance security as per provisions of contract. Furthermore,

the petitioner had hardly less than three weeks to complete the

work from the date of impugned action, i.e., up to 15.02.2022

and it was highly impracticable for him to complete the

remaining work.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

14. The learned counsel for the respondents further

submitted that Clauses 3 (i) to (vii) of the contract are quite

explicit and the said clause provides for recession/termination of

the contract in case the petitioner is found to be lagging or

negligent in carrying out his obligation and does not complete

the work within the specified period in the notice given in

writing. The respondents have rescinded the contract in terms of

express provision of the contract and extended time and there is

no illegality in it.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents further

submitted that the order dated 28.01.2022 is a speaking order

and it mentions in detail the events taking place in the matter

towards execution of the contract by the petitioner and default

made by him despite constant reminders. The petitioner even

attended the meetings. The learned counsel stressed the schedule

dates to buttress his submission that the petitioner was granted a

number of opportunities to complete the work and despite so

much indulgences being shown, the petitioner failed to complete

the project. The learned counsel further submitted that the

petitioner even attended the meetings called by the respondents

in which he was impressed upon to complete the work and

every possible help was extended to him and when it was found Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

that the petitioner was not interested in completing the work

assigned to him, despite extension of time period of completion

of work till 15.02.2022, the contract was terminated vide order

dated 28.01.2022 since it was found that it was impracticable for

the petitioner to complete the work within the extended period

and since the project has already overshot the time period and

there was every possibility of Central Government not providing

funding for the project if it was not completed by 31.03.2022,

the entire financial burden would have shifted to the State

Government resulting in loss of face for the State Government.

Cumulatively taking all these points into consideration, the

respondent no.3 was left with no option but to terminate the

contract.

16. The learned counsel for the respondents

vehemently denied that the contract was rescinded at the

instance of higher authorities of respondent no.3. The learned

counsel further submitted that from bare perusal of the order

dated 28.01.2022 shows only a supervisory meeting was

conducted to take stock of the situation by the higher authorities

of the respondent no.2 and finding the tardy progress of the

work and considering the unsatisfactory work of the petitioner

and also taking into account the previous conduct of the Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

petitioner as enumerated in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the order dated

28.01.2022, the decision was taken to rescind the contract of the

petitioner and also for blacklisting him. It cannot be said that the

respondent no.3 took the decision only on the basis of the

decision arrived at in the meeting of the higher authorities of

respondent no.3 because the contents of the order dated

28.01.2022 clearly show that the respondent no.3 arrived at an

independent conclusion based on the material facts which have

been mentioned from paragraph 2 to 5 (supra) and paragraph 6

of the aforesaid order is only the logical culmination of the

events in hand.

17. The learned counsel for the respondents further

submitted that the alternative prayer of the petitioner is with

regard to disputed questions of facts about his claims regarding

the payment of contractual amount and forfeiture of earnest

money and other financial issues regarding payments made and

claim of balance amount. There are other issues with regard to

payment of interest and adjustment of risk and cost amount.

These issues cannot be agitated before a writ Court and the

petitioner has a remedy under clause 25 of the Contract which

provides for settlement of dispute by arbitration.

18. The learned counsel for the respondents again Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

reiterated that the petitioner has got alternative efficacious

remedy by either resorting to the provisions of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 or taking recourse to the provisions

of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration

Tribunal Act, 2008. Hence, no interference is required by this

Court in this matter.

19. Having considered the material available on record

and further considering the rival submission, in the present case,

this Court is required to examine first the maintainability of the

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

20. It is well settled principle of law that while

entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court

should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative

writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature

and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution.

The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a

discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The

Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise

of this power. And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a

prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to

the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

the State or its instrumentality is so arbitrary and unreasonable

so as to violate the constitutional mandate or Article 14 or for

other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it

necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.

21. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction under

Article 226, the Court is entitled to enquire into whether the

action of the State or its instrumentalities is arbitrary or unfair

and in consequence, in violation of Article 14. The jurisdiction

under Article 226 is a valuable constitutional safeguard against

an arbitrary exercise of State power or a misuse of authority. In

determining as to whether the jurisdiction should be exercised in

a contractual dispute, the Court must, undoubtedly eschew,

disputed questions of fact which would depend upon an

evidentiary determination requiring a trial. But equally, it is well

settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted

only on the basis that the dispute pertains to the contractual

arena. This is for the simple reason that the State and its

instrumentalities are not exempt from the duty to act fairly

merely because in their business dealings they have entered into

the realm of contract. Similarly, the presence of an arbitration

clause does oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases

though, it still needs to be decided from case to case as to Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

whether recourse to a public law remedy can justifiably be

invoked.

22. Giving our thoughtful consideration on the aspect

of the maintainability, the Apex Court in ABL International

Ltd. (supra) in paragraph 27 has held as under :

"27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:

(a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable.

(b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule.

(c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable".

23. On the other hand, in the case of Union of India and

Ors. Vs. Puna Hinda, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 690, the Apex

Court has held that in the contractual matters in the field of

private law are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to

by the parties. For example, the dispute as to whether any

amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

are disputed questions questions of facts and cannot be

adjudicated by the writ court.

24. From the aforesaid discussions, it seems reasonable

to conclude that wherever mixed questions of law and facts are

involved, the writ Court has jurisdiction to look into the matter

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present case

being one such instance, we hold that this Court has got

jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

25. The contention of the petitioner is confined basically

against rescinding of his contract and the petitioner has assailed

the order of rescinding of the contract mainly on two grounds;

firstly that despite extension granted till 15.12.2021, his contract

was terminated on 28.01.2022. Secondly, the order has been

assailed on the ground that the respondent no.3 passed the

rescinding order on the directions of his higher authorities. But

we are afraid that both the contentions are not sustainable in the

light of facts and circumstances and under the contractual

obligation of the parties. The record shows the petitioner was

the successful bidder for construction and development of theme

park at Bhitiharwa, West Champaran and he was issued a work

order to proceed with the work vide order dated 09.03.2019. In

terms of the contract, the petitioner was supposed to complete Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

the work till 08.06.2020. The petitioner gave his letter of

acceptance on 06.03.2019 and vide further letter dated

12.04.2019, the petitioner submitted a work programme time

line with an undertaking to complete the work by June, 2020.

Thereafter, due to non-completion of work by the petitioner till

08.06.2020, which was the scheduled date for completion of the

work, the petitioner was issued a reminder on 08.12.2020 with a

warning that he would be debarred from further participating in

any bid. Further letters of warning were issued to the petitioner

on 09.02.2021 and 04.06.2021 by the respondents. When the

work was not completed even three months after 30.05.2021,

the date which was fixed for completion of the work, the

petitioner was finally directed to complete the work by

December, 2021 and to furnish an affidavit in this regard.

Meanwhile, when it was found that the petitioner has been

grossly negligent, a letter dated 16.08.2021 was issued further

extending warning to the petitioner. Though the petitioner

submitted an undertaking to complete the work by 31.12.2021.

Seeing the indifferent attitude of the petitioner, he was debarred

to participate in any future tender vide order dated 19.11.2021

by the respondent no.3. In a meeting dated 15.12.2021 which

was also attended by the petitioner, the petitioner was directed Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

to complete the work on or before 15.02.2022 with the rider that

periodic supervision of the progress in the work would be made.

It further appears from the record that when the progress was

found to be tardy and there was no likelihood of completion of

the work till 15.12.2022, the respondent no.3 moved to rescind

the contract vide order dated 28.01.2022. So, the claim of the

petitioner that his contract could not have been terminated

before the expiry of the extended time could not be sustained in

view of the aforesaid discussions, dates and events which show

the petitioner has been given ample opportunity to complete the

work but he failed to honour his commitment.

26. On the second aspect of the contention of the

petitioner that the respondent no.3 passed the order on the

directions of his higher authorities, the said contention is also

not sustainable. The order dated 28.01.2022 is reproduced below

for ready reference :

ददिननांक-28/1/2022

आदिदश

भभारत सरकभार दभारभा स्वदिदश दिशर्शन ययोजनभा कद अन्तरर्शत दबिहभार रभाज्य पयर्शटन दवकभास दनरम दल0 पटनभा ममें "रनांधधी सदकर्शट कभा दवकभास " पपकदज कद अन्तरर्शत कई ययोजनभाओओं समदत "contruction of Theme Park at Bhitiharwa, Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

West Champaran, नभामक रयोजनभा कधी स्वधीककदत दवतधीय वरर्श 2018-19 ममें दिधी रई। इस ययोजनभा हदततु NIT कद मभाध्यम सद दनदवदिभा प्रकभादशत कधी रई एवओं चयदनत सओंवददिक M/s Tripurari Prasad Singh, Narayan Bhawan, Bhikanpura, HPO- Muzaffarpur-842001 कयो इस कभायर्यालय कद पतनांक- 241, ददिननांक 09.03.2019 कद दभारभा issue of Notice To Proceed with The Work कभा पत दनरर्शत दकयभा रयभा। एकरभारनभामभा कद अनतुसभार 08.06.2020 तक यह कभायर्श पपूरर्श करनभा थभा। पतनांक - 213/Engg/2019, ददिननांक 06.03.2019 दभारभा Letter of Acceptance दनरर्शत दकयभा रयभा। सओंवददिक कद दभारभा ददिननांक - 12.04.2019 कयो work program Time Line समदपर्शत करतद हएतु June 2020 तक पपूरर्श करनद कभा वचन ददियभा रयभा।

ददिननांक- 19.09.2019 कयो सओंवददिक कद दभारभा कभायर्यालय कयो सपूचनभा दिधी रई दजसममें चल रहद कभायर्श कयो भपूदम दववभादि बितभायभा रयभा। उस समय तक मभात छयोटभा एवओं बिडभा शशौचभालय कभा कभायर्श छत स्तर तक तथभा कपफदटद दरयभा कभा कभायर्श दलन्टल स्तर तक तु थभा, और पपाँच महधीनद कद बिभादि भधी अन्य Components हआ ममें कभायर्श प्रभारओंभ नहहीं दकयभा रयभा थभा। इस कभायर्यालय कद पतनांक - 1153/Engg/2019, ददिननांक- 03.12.2019 एवओं पतनांक - 64/Engg/2020, ददिननांक 18.01.2020 कद दभारभा स्थल दववभादि कभा समभाधभान हयोनद कधी सपूचनभा एवओं यतुद्धस्तर पर कभायर्श करभानद हदततु दनदिर्देदशत दकयभा रयभा। सओंवददिक दभारभा अपनद समदपर्शत work Program Time Line कद अनतुरूप लरभर एक वरर्श बिभादि भधी कभायर्श ममें प्ररदत नहहीं ददिखभायधी रयधी।

2. अधयोहस्तभाक्षरधी कद पतनांक - 847/Engg/2020, ददिननांक- 08.12.2020 कद दभारभा दनधर्यादरत दतदथ 08 जपून 2020 तक कभायर्श पपूरर्श नहहीं हयोनद पर खददि व्यक्त करतद हएतु दबिहभार ठधीकददिभारधी दनबिओंधन दनयमभावलधी 2007 कद तहत भदवष्य ममें दकसधी भधी दनदवदिभा ममें भभार लदन द सद वओंदचत दकए जभानद कधी कभारर्शवभाई करनद हदततु चदतभावनधी पत दनरर्शत दकयभा रयभा। सओंवददिक दभारभा वकक्ष कटभाई न हयोनद कद कभारर सबिओंदधत component कभायर्श ममें बिभाधभा हयोनद कभा पत ददिननांक - 18.01.2021 कयो ददियभा रयभा दजसकद दलए डभाईंर ममें आवश्यक सओंशयोधन कर इस समस्यभा कभा भधी दनदिभान करतद तु द कभायर्श कयो शधीघ्र पपूरर्श करनद कभा दनदिर्देश सओंवददिक कयो ददियभा हय रयभा। अधयोहस्तभाक्षरधी कद पतनांक 144/Engg/ 2021 ददिननांक 09.02.2021 कद दभारभा कभायर्श कयो शधीघ्र पपूरर्श करनद हदततु पतुनन दनदिर्देश चदतभावनधी पत दनरर्शत दकयभा रयभा। सओंवददिक दभारभा चभार मभाह बिभादि भधी तधीवव्र रदत सद कभायर्श नहहीं दकए जभानद कद कभारर पतुनन अधयोहस्तभाक्षरधी कद पतनांक -382/Engg/2021, ददिननांक -

04.06.2021 कद दभारभा कभायर्श कयो शधीघ्र पपूरर्श करनद एवओं दवफलतभा Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

कधी दस्थदत ममें कभारर्शवभाई दकए जभानद सम्बिन्धधी चदतभावनधी पत दनरर्शत दकयभा रयभा। ददिननांक - 06.05.2021 कयो पतुनन सदचव , पयर्शटन दवभभार, दबिहभार सरकभार कधी अध्यक्षतभा ममें हईतु समधीक्षभात्मक बिपठक ममें भधी सदचव महयोदिय दभारभा ददिननांक 30.05.2021 तक चरखभा कधी स्थभापनभा ........................................................................ ...................... (not legible) नहहीं दकयभा रयभा। ददिननांक - 10.06.2021 कयो सओंवददिक कद दभारभा पत दिदकर बितभायभा रयभा दक दमटधी भरभाई ममें एकरभारनभामभा ममें कम पदरमभार ममें दमटधी रखनद कद कभारर अदतदरक्त वनांदछत दमटधी कभा कभायर्श करनद हदततु दनदिर्देश ददियभा जभाय दजसद कभायर्शपभालक अदभयओंतभा दभारभा मशौदखक स्वधीककदत प्रदिभान कधी रई तथभा कभायर्श कयो तधीवव्र रदत सद करनद हदततु दनदिर्देश ददियभा रयभा। अओंकदनय हप दक जयो कभायर्श दमटधी भरभाई सद सओंबिदओं धत /बिभादधत नहहीं थभा यह कभायर्श भधी 10.06.2021 तक सओंवददिक कद दभारभा पपूरर्श नहहीं दकयभा रयभा थभा। जयो कभायर्श कद प्रदत लभापरवभाहधी कयो प्रमभादरत करतभा हप। ददिननांक 04.06.2021 कयो सओंवददिक कद दभारभा पत कद सभाथ शपथ -पत सओंलग्न कर समदपर्शत दकयभा रयभा , दजसममें सओंवददिक नद स्वयओं शपथ दलयभा हप दक यह कभायर्श ददिसम्बिर 2021 तक दनदश्चित रूप सद पपूरर्श कर दलयभा जभाएरभा एवओं उस समय तक दकसधी भधी व्यवधभान कधी चचर्या नहहीं कधी रई।

3. प्रबिओंध दनदिदशक, दबिहभार स्टद ट टपू दरज्म डद वलपममेंट ककॉरपयोरदशन दल. पटनभा कधी अध्यक्षतभा ममें हईतु इस ययोजनभा कद प्ररदत कधी समधीक्षभात्मक बिपठक ममें पभायभा रयभा दक कभायर्श कयो पपूरर्श करनद हदततु ददिननांक 30.05.2021 कधी दनधर्यादरत समय कद तधीन मभाह कद बिभादि भधी कभायर्श पपूरर्श नहहीं दकयभा रयभा। सओंवददिक कयो अओंदतम रूप सद ददिसम्बिर 2021 तक कभायर्श पपूरर्श करनद कभा दनदिर्देश ददियभा रयभा एवओं पतुनन शपथ -पत समदपर्शत करनद कभा दनदिर्देश ददियभा रयभा। सवददिक दभारभा पतनांक -NIL, ददिननांक- 15.082021 दभारभा अवरत करभायभा रयभा दक स्थल पर दमटधी भरभाई कभायर्श हदततु दमटधी उत्खनन पर स्थभानधीय प्रशभासन दभारभा अवरयोध उत्पन्न दकयभा जभा रहभा हप। इसकद समभाधभान हदततु खनन दवकभास पदिभादधकभारधी , पदश्चिम चम्पभारर, बिददतयभा कयो अधयोहस्तभाक्षरधी कद पतनांक - 702/ Engg/2021, ददिननांक-23.09.2021 दभारभा पत ददियभा रयभा। सभाथ हधी सओंवददिक कयो जयो कभायर्श दमटधी भरभाई सद सओंबिदओं धत नहहीं हप उसद तत्कभाल पपूरर्श करनद हदततु दनदिदश ददियभा रयभा।

4. सदचव, पयर्शटन दवभभार, दबिहभार सरकभार कद दभारभा समधीक्षभात्मक बिपठक कधी कभायर्शवभाहधी प्रदतवददिन कद अवलयोकन कद क्रम ममें इस ययोजनभा कद सओंवददिक कद दभारभा कभायर्श ममें घयोर लभापरवभाहधी दकए जभानद कद कभारर इन्हमें भदवष्य कधी दकसधी भधी दनदवदिभा ममें भभार लदन द सद वओंदचत करनद हदततु स्पषधीकरर दनरर्शत करनद हदततु दनदिर्देश ददियभा रयभा। दनदिर्देश कद आलयोक ममें अधयोहस्तभाक्षरधी कद पतनांक - Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

584/Engg/2021, ददिननांक-16.08.2021 दभारभा स्पषधीकरर दनरर्शत दकयभा रयभा। सओंवददिक दभारभा ददिननांक 25.08.2021 कयो उक्त स्पषधीकरर कद जबिभाव ममें कदवल पतुरभानधी कदठनभाईययों कभा हवभालभा दिदतद हएतु कभायर्श ममें दबिलम्बि हयोनद कधी बिभात कहधी रई , दजसकभा समभाधभान कभाफधी पहलद दकयभा जभा चतुकभा थभा एवओं सओंवददिक दभारभा ददिए रए शपथ-पत कद अनतुसभार भधी कभायर्श दनधर्यादरत समय ददिसम्बिर 2021 तक पपूरर्श करनद हदततु कभायर्श ममें समभानतुपभादतक प्ररदत नहहीं कधी रई। सओंवददिक कद दभारभा ददिननांक - 31.12.2021 तक कभायर्श पपूरर्श करनद कभा पतुनन वचन ददियभा रयभा, परन्ततु तदिनतुसभार कभायर्श कद त्वदरत दक्रयभान्वयन ममें तत्परतभा नहहीं ददिखभाई रई। कभायर्श कधी समधीक्षभा कद क्रम ममें ददिसम्बिर 2021 तक कभायर्श कद पपूरर्श हयोनद कधी सओंभभावनभा नहहीं ददिखनद कद कभारर एवओं कभायर्श ममें उदिभाशधीनतभा बिरतनद कद कभारर अधयोहस्तभाक्षरधी कद पतभाक -850/Engg/2021, ददिननांक-19.11.2021 कद दभारभा इस ययोजनभा कद सओंवददिक कयो भदवष्य ममें दकसधी भधी दनदवदिभा ममें भभार लदन द सद वओंदचत कर ददियभा रयभा। लरभर एक मभाह बिभादि पतुनन कभायर्श ममें अपददक्षत प्ररदत नहहीं लभानद कधी सपूचनभा प्रभाप्त हयोनद एवओं सओंवददिक कद दभारभा ददियद रए दनधर्यादरत समय ददिसम्बिर 2021 कद अन्दिर कभायर्श पपूरर्श नहहीं हयोनद कधी सओंभभावनभा ददिखनद कद कभारर अधयोहस्तभाक्षरधी कद पतनांक - 909/Engg/2021 ददिननांक 11.12.2021 कद दभारभा एकरभारनभामभा कधी कद अनतुसभार (1) अवशदर कभायरओं कयो सओंवददिक कद Risk & Coat पर करभानद (2) सभधी जमभानत रभादश जब्त करनद एवओं (3) उनकद दनबिओंधन कयो कभालधी सपूचधी ममें दिजर्श करनद हदततु दनरर्शत दकयभा रयभा।

5. सदचव, पयर्शटन दवभभार, दबिहभार सरकभार कद दभारभा रपाँधधी सदकर्शट कद अन्तरर्शत दक्रयभादन्वत कधी जभानदवभालधी ययोजनभाओओं कधी समधीक्षभात्मक बिपठक ददिननांक- 16.12.2021, दजसममें सओंवददिक भधी उपदस्थत थद. इस ययोजनभा कद दक्रयभान्वयन ममें हयोनदवभालद अत्यदधक दबिलम्बि करनद पर कभाफधी रयोर व्यक्त दकयभा रयभा। सओंवददिक दभारभा स्थल पर ओं धी सपूचनभा भधी दमटधी भरभाई ममें आ रहधी बिभाधभा दिपूर हयो जभानद सओंबिध सदचव महयोदिय कधी बिपठक ददिननांक - 16.12.2021 ममें दिधी रयधी। सओंवददिक कयो स्थल पर कपम्प कर कभायर्श करभानद एवओं आरद सद हर सप्तभाह कद रतुरुवभार कयो प्रबिओंध दनदिदशक महयोदिय कद समक्ष प्ररदत प्रदतवददिन कद सभाथ उपदस्थत हयोनद कभा दनदिर्देश ददियभा रयभा। क्षदतधीय अदभयओंतभाओओं कयो इस कभायर्श कधी सततत् दनररभानधी रखनद एवओं कभायर्श 15 फरवरधी 2022 तक पपूरर्श करनद हदततु समय कद सभाथ समभानतुपभादतक प्ररदत कभा अवलयोकन करनद कभा दनदिर्देश ददियभा रयभा। सओंवददिक दभारभा कभालधी सपूचधी सद सओंबिदओं धत स्पषधीकरर पत कद आलयोक ममें ददिननांक -18.12.2021 कयो स्पषधीकरर समदपर्शत दकयभा रयभा दजसममें कभायर्श कयो उन्हहीं कद दभारभा ददिए रए शपथ -पत एवओं Time Line कद अओंदिर पपूरर्श नहहीं करनद कद सओंबिध ओं ममें कयोई Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

ठयोस कभारर नहहीं बितभायभा रयभा एवओं कदवल पतुरभानधी कदठनभाईययों कभा दजक्र दकयभा रयभा दजसकभा समभाधभान बिहत तु पहलद हधी दकयभा जभा चतुकभा थभा। ददिननांक 28.12.2021 कयो क्षदतधीय अदभयओंतभाओओं कद दभारभा स्थलधीय दनरधीक्षर एवओं सओंबिदओं धत प्रदतवददिन सद स्पष हआ तु दक समय कद अनतुसभार कभायर्श ममें समभानतुपभादतक प्ररदत नहहीं हईतु एवओं सओंवददिक कयो पतुनन कभायर्श ममें यतुद्धस्तर पर प्ररदत करनद , पयर्याप्त मभानव बिल, दनमर्यार सभामगधी उपलब्ध करभानद कभा दनदिर्देश ददियभा रयभा। सओंबिदओं धत वभास्ततुदवदि कद दभारभा भधी स्थल भ्रमर कर सओंवददिक कयो सभधी प्रकभार कभा तकनधीकधी सहययोर प्रदिभान दकयभा रयभा। ददिननांक-16. 01.2022 कयो पतुन : क्षदतधीय अदभयओंतभाओओं दभारभा स्थलधीय दनरधीक्षर कर प्रदतवदददित दकयभा रयभा दक स्थल पर हयो रहद कभायरओं कधी पपूरर्शतभा हदततु समय कद सभाथ समभानतुपभादतक प्ररदत नहहीं हप। एवओं अपददक्षत रदत कभा अभभाव हप एवओं कभायर्श कयो पतुनदनर्शधर्यादरत समयसधीमभा ददिननांक - 15.02.2022 तक पपूरर्श दकयभा जभानभा कदठन हप। तथ्ययों सद स्पष हप दक उक्त ययोजनभा कद दक्रयभान्वयन ममें कतु छ आदशक कदठनभाईयपाँ थधी , दजसकयो कभाफधी समय पपूवर्श दनरभाकरर कर ददिए जभानद कद बिभावजपूदि भधी सओंवददिक कद दभारभा कभायर्श ममें अपददक्षत प्ररदत नहहीं लभायधी रयधी एवओं कभायर्श कयो दनधर्यादरत समय सधीमभा कद अओंदिर पपूरर्श नहहीं दकयभा जभा सकभा। इस सओंवददिक कद दभारभा कतु छ Components] यथभा चरखभा कभा Pedestal दनमर्यार, थधीम पभाकर्श कधी सओंरचनभा कभा Finishing कभा कभायर्श आददि समय सद पपूरर्श नहहीं करनद कद कभारर इसधी दनमर्यार स्थल कद अन्य सओंबिददिक कयो आवओंदटत ययोजनभा कद कतुछ अवयययों कभा कभायर्श यथभा चरखभा स्थभापनभा Ilumination STP आददि कभा कभायर्श करभानभा सओंभव नहहीं हयो सकभा।

6. पयर्शटन मओंतभालय, भभारत सरकभार कद दभारभा स्पष दनदिदश हप दक यददि इस ययोजनभा कभा कभायर्श ददिननांक 31.03.2022 कयो पपूरर्श नहहीं दकयभा रयभा, तयो इसद पपूरर्श करनद हदततु शदर रभादश भभारत सरकभार कद दभारभा प्रदिभान नहहीं कधी जभाएरधी एवओं यह रभाज्य सरकभार कद दभारभा वहनधीय हयोरभा दजससद पयर्शटन दवभभार , दबिहभार सरकभार कधी छदव धपूदमल हयोरधी तथभा रभाज्य सरकभार कयो अदतदरक्त दवतधीय भभार कभा सभामनभा करनभा पड़द रभा। ददिननांक - 20.01.2022 कयो मभाननधीय मओंतधी, पयर्शटन दवभभार, सदचव, पयर्शटन दवभभार, प्रबिओंध दनदिदशक, दबिहभार स्टद ट टपू दरज्म डद वलपममेंट ककॉरपयोरदशन दलo पटनभा एवओं मतुख्य अदभयओंतभा कधी उपदस्थदत ममें समधीक्षभा बिपठक ममें उक्त सभधी तथ्ययों कद सभाथ कभारर दिदतद हएतु इस सओंवददिक कद एकरभारनभामभा कयो दवखओंदडत (rescinded) करनद एवओं पओंजधीयन कयो कभालधी सपूचधी ममें डभालनद हद दनदिर्देश ददियभा रयभा।

उक्त सभधी तथ्य इस सओंवददिक कद पओंजधीयन कयो कभालधी सपूचधी ममें डभालनद एवओं एकरभारनभामभा कधी सतुसओंरत धभारभाओओं कद अनतुसभार Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

कभारवभाई हदततु पयर्याप्त कभारर हप। अतन तत्कभाल इस कभायर्यालय कद 09/Engg/2021, ददिननांक- 11.12.2021 ममें वदरर्शत एकरभारनभामभा कधी कओंदडकभा- 03 (iii), 03 (iv) 03 (v) एवओं 03

(vii) कद आलयोक ममें एकरभारनभामभा कयो दवखओंदडत करतद हएतु जमभानत एवओं अदतदरक्त जमभानत कधी जमभा रभादश जब्त दकयभा जभातभा हप एवओं अवशदर कभायर्श कयो सओंवददिक कद Risk & Cost पर करवभानद कभा दनरर्शय दलयभा जभातभा हप।

ह० /-

                                                                       कभायर्शपभालक अदभयओंतभा
                                                             दबिहभार स्टद ट टपू दरज्म    डद वलपममेंट
                                                                   ककॉरपयोरदशन दल० पटनभा


                                  जभापनांक-41/Engg/2018/ 64/2022

ददिननांक- 28/11/2022 प्रदतदलदप:- सओंवददिक M/s Tripurari) Prasad Singh, Narayan Bhawan, Bhikanpura, HPO Muzaffarpur-842001 कयो सपूचनभाथर्श प्रददचत। सभाथ हधी उन्हमें दनदिदश ददियभा जभातभा हप दक अद्यतन दकयद रयद कभायर्श कधी अओंदतम मभापधी ददिननांक 01.02.2022 कयो दनधर्यादरत कधी जभातधी हप। दनधर्यादरत दतदथ कयो आप स्वयओं अथवभा अपनद अदधककत प्रदतदनदध (प्रभादधकभार पत कद सभाथ) कधी उपदस्थदत सतुदनदश्चित करमें। आपकद अथवभा आपकद प्रदतदनदध कद अनतुपदस्थदत रहनद कधी दस्थदत ममें दवभभार दभारभा एक पक्षधीय अओंदतम मभापधी कर लधी जभायदरधी जयो आपकयो ओं ममें आपकभा कयोई भधी दिभावभा स्वधीकभायर्श मभान्य हयोरभा तथभा इस सओंबिध नहहीं हयोरभा।

ह० /-

                                                                       कभायर्शपभालक अदभयओंतभा
                                                             दबिहभार स्टद ट टपू दरज्म    डद वलपममेंट
                                                                   ककॉरपयोरदशन दल० पटनभा

27. A bare perusal of the order dated 28.01.2022 shows

the respondent no.3 has elaborately discussed various stages

starting from notice inviting tender till passing of the order

dated 28.01.2022 and the same shows the respondent no.3 has

taken the decision in the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case and not on the basis of the directions of his higher Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

authorities. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the order dated 28.01.2022

clearly bring out the fact on fore that the conduct of the

petitioner was considered at length in the said order. Paragraph

6 of the said order is only consequential to the other

developments in the matter and only stamps the inevitable, it is

one of the incidental facts which was also considered by the

respondent no.3 as it appears from the concluding paragraph of

the order. The contention of the petitioner regarding the order

dated 28.01.2022 is thus without any merit and hence is brushed

aside.

28. In view of the discussions made regarding the

contention of the petitioner, we find and hold that the petitioner

has failed to make out any case in his support and the order

dated 28.01.2022 is without any blemish and hence, the same is

sustainable.

29. So far as the claim of the petitioner to allow him to

complete the balance work in question is concerned, in the light

of the aforesaid discussions, the same could not be allowed.

Moreover, it is clear from the pleadings that the respondents

floated a fresh tender and awarded the work to third party and it

has been submitted at the bar that the remaining work has been

completed by the third party.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3784 of 2022 dt 17-03-2023

30. Further, the claim of the petitioner to pay all

contractual amount with relates to bill of work done including

entire amount of security deposit and deducted amount of time

extension etc. against the respondents is concerned, the same

being a disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated by

this Court and in this regard, we place our reliance on the

decision rendered in Union of India and Ors. (supra).

Furthermore, clause 25 of the conditions of contract provides for

settlement of disputes by arbitration and the petitioner is at

liberty to take recourse of the said clause of the contract in case

of his grievance.

31. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this

writ petition stands disposed of.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

( Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/-

AFR/NAFR                A.F.R.
CAV DATE                21.02.2023
Uploading Date          17.03.2023
Transmission Date       N.A.