Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/998/2021 on 20 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 998 of 2021
BETWEEN:
J.D. Builders a Partnership Firm ...Petitioner
(By Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate)
AND:
HQ Chief Engineer Central Command
& others ...Respondents
(Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Central Government Standing
Counsel for the respondents)
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner is a partnership firm, which deals
in Civil Construction Work and is enlisted with Military
Engineering Services. Petitioner was awarded two
contracts, namely, (i) Construction of Baffle Range at
Dehradun and (ii) Construction work for Second Arty
Regt at Birpur, Dehradun (Phase-II).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that first Contract, namely, Construction of Baffle
Range was to be completed on or before 31.12.2020
and the said work was completed by the petitioner
well within the stipulated time. Regarding the second
work, namely, Construction work for Second Arty
Regt at Birpur, Dehradun, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that initially the second work was
to be completed on or before 29.08.2021, however,
subsequently, the said deadline was extended by the
Competent Authority upto 5th March, 2022, due to
collapse of the bridge leading to the construction site
and various other reasons.
3. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is
no delay on the part of the petitioner in executing the
work, therefore, the remarks made against the name
of the petitioner in the quarterly work load return for
Contractors that petitioner is not capable to handle
more load due to slow progress is uncalled for and is
liable to be removed.
4. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedy, learned Central
Government Standing Counsel, on instructions,
submits that the Office of Chief Engineer, Military
Engineering Services, Bareilly Zone (respondent no 2
herein) has recommended to respondent 1 to remove
the adverse remarks mentioned against the name of
the petitioner in the quarterly work load return issued
on 17.03.2021. He further submits that petitioner
had executed the work pursuant to the first contract
well within time and regarding the second work, he
submits that the deadline, initially fixed, has not
expired as yet and the Competent Authority has
further extended the deadline to 05.03.2022.
5. Since respondent no. 2 has himself
recommended for removing the adverse remarks of
slow progress mentioned against the name of the
petitioner in the quarterly work load return and now
final decision is to be taken by respondent no.1
therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to respondent no. 1 to pass appropriate
order, in accordance with law, on the
recommendation made by respondent no. 2 as early
as possible but not later than two weeks from today.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Aswal
