PARMINDER KUMAR KANWAR Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though the relief claimed in this writ petition is very innocuous to the effect that "the respondents be directed to refund the earnest money with interest and pay 10% loss of profit of awarded amount to the petitioner", yet the moot question is as to whether such a petition is in fact maintainable. However, before answering this question minimal facts need to be noticed.

(2.) The Irrigation and Public Health Department on 8.6.2011 awarded the contract in favour of the petitioner for construction work of Shah Nehar project in District Kangra, which is LBC main canal at RD 23618 to 24842 i.e. 1224 metres in length with the time limit of six months for its completion. The petitioner was requested to execute the contract and thereafter commence the work immediately as is evident from the letter dated 8.6.2011 (Annexure P1) addressed by the Executive Engineer to the petitioner.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner as set out in this petition is that he was not provided hindrance free site along with structural designs and drawings and apart from that, these were the respondents themselves, who kept on changing the alignment and resultantly, the petitioner could not even enhance much less complete the work in question, and therefore, should be refunded earnest money with interest and damages, as aforesaid.