MURARI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for a direction on the respondents to release the earnest/security deposit made by him in connection with Package No. JH -1401 under the Prime Minister Rural Road Construction Policy, regarding construction of road from Ajmar to Kui/via/Pokhari/Dumari.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner after allotment of the work was proceeding for executing the same, but the extremist organisation stopped the work at the instance of Nuxal outfit. The petitioner informed the same to the executive engineer by letter dated 22nd February, 2003, expressing the difficulty in view of regular threat and disruption of the work at the hands of Nuxalite/anti social elements, but nothing was done. The petitioner, thereafter, demanded security money/earnest money, as he was prevented to complete the work by Nuxalite/anti social elements, but instead of releasing the earnest money to the petitioner, the respondents rescinded the contract by the impugned order and forfeited the amount.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating, inter alia that the petitioner has not completed the work allotted to him and as such, In accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, he is not entitled to get the refund of the security deposit/earnest money, as claimed by him. It has been further stated that the petitioner has already done the work worth Rs. 108.86 lacs out of Rs. 145.98 lacs but earlier he never complained about the Nuxal problem. He has also never asked for any police help and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get the refund of the earnest amount, as claimed by him.