BAFNA EARTH MOVERS LTD Vs. STATE OF C.G
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Bafna Earth Movers Ltd.
STATE OF C.G.
Click here to view full judgement.
L.C.Bhadoo, J. -
(1.) By the instant petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 11-12-2003 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Respon00dent No. 2 whereby the Petitioner has been debarred from participating in the tender process of Respondent department for a period of two years on account of non-completion of the work within the stipulated time awarded to the Petitioner.
(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that Respondents floated tenders for construction of the road in Khairagarh Division. The Petitioner being the successful tenderer executed an agreement with Respondent No. 4 vide contracts bearing Nos. 62/D.L./2001-2002 and 61/ D.L./2001-2002 work to the tune of Rs. 68 lacs and for remaining two works to the tune of Rs. 18 lacs. As the Petitioner could not complete the work within the stipulated time, he sought for extension of time, in one case two times and in one case for one time. It appears that even then the Petitioner was not able to execute the work and as admitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, during the course of arguments, that work has been undertaken by Respondents and same has been completed at the risk and cost of the Petitioner herein. However, in the meantime, by order Annexure-P/1 the Petitioner has been debarred from participating in the tender process for a period of two years.
(3.) The main reply of the Respondents is that the Petitioner did not start the work within the stipulated time. The Petitioner applied for extension on 22-1-2003 on the ground of break down of machinery and difficulty in procurement of stones. Even for the agreement No. 43/DL-02-03 amounting to Rs. 18,12,000.00 work order was issued on 18-9-2002 and the work was to be completed by 31-12-2002, that work was not started by the Petitioner even after the expiry of time period. The Petitioner applied for extension on 21-1-2003. Similarly, for the agreement No. 62/DL-02-03 amounting to Rs. 1,10,74,000.00 work order was issued on 5-2-2002 and period for completion of the work was 5 months i.e. 5-7-2002. The Petitioner had not completed the work as per work schedule for which extension was also granted from 6-7-2002 to 15-1-2003; even then the Petitioner was not able to complete the work. For Khairagarh Division-Janjgir Road work was not completed by the Petitioner. For agreement No. 61/DL-02-03 amounting to Rs. 67.29 lacs work order was issued on 6-2-2002 and the Petitioner had partly done the work of Khairagarh-Dongergarh Road and asked for extension of time for completing the work of Dongargarh-Chichola Road which was granted up to 15-12-2002, but the Petitioner failed to complete that work. For the agreement No. 25/DL-02-03 amounting to Rs. 35,29,000.00 work order was issued on 22-7-2002 and was to be completed by 21-10-2002 (three months), but the Petitioner had not even started the work within the stipulated time. Therefore, the Petitioner neither completed the work nor shown any interest in completing the work. Even the extension was not applied within the stipulated time deapite several reminders and notices and the Petitioner failed to complete the work. The contention of the Petitioner that he was willing to complete the work, therefore, he applied for extension of time is fully without any basis.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.