- (1.) By these proceedings, the petitioner seeks to question the legality of an order dated 31 December 2014 passed by the Chief Engineer (Central Zone) in the Public Works Department at Lucknow, cancelling the registration of the petitioner and blacklisting him. The second relief which has been sought is for the sanctioning and payment of the bills submitted by the petitioner together with interest.
(2.) A tender was floated by the Superintending Engineer of the Lucknow Circle in 2012-13 for carrying out the work of renewal of State highway no.40 on the Lucknow-Mohan road from kilometers 20 to 30. The bid submitted by the petitioner was accepted and a contract was executed on 26 February 2013. The work under the contract was to be completed by 25 April 2013. A notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner on 29 October 2014 by the Chief Engineer (Central Zone) stating that an inspection has been carried out on 13 March 2014. During the course of the inspection, it has been revealed that (i) though the bitumen content of 5%, at least, was required to be observed, it has been found that the content utilized by the petitioner was between 3.59% to 4.19%; (ii) the grading of the grit used in the mix was not proper; (iii) the surface of the erstwhile road had not been properly cleaned and scrapped, as a result of which, the entire work of renewal which has been carried out by the petitioner was found to have been damaged. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice to show cause. Eventually, an order was passed on 31 December 2014 by the Chief Engineer (Central Zone). The Chief Engineer has entered the findings of fact that (i) as against the minimum bitumen content of 5%, the work carried out by the petitioner showed the bitumen content between 3.59% to 4.19%; (ii) the grading of the grit used in the mix was not proper; (iii) the surface of the erstwhile road had not been properly cleaned and scrapped, as a result of which, the entire work of renewal which has been carried out by the petitioner was found to have been damaged.
(3.) The submission of the petitioner is that on 21 October 2014, the petitioner had issued an Advocate's notice, seeking the payment of the outstanding dues, failing which, it was stated, the arbitration agreement in the contract would be invoked. The first submission is that the notice to show cause was issued thereafter on 29 October 2014 in order to defeat the claim. The second submission which has been urged is that the bitumen was required to be supplied by the Public Works Department and it was supplied by the Department, hence no fault can be found with the work which was carried out by the petitioner. Thirdly, it was submitted that the work was to be supervised by the Superintending Engineer and hence, it was not open to the Chief Engineer to issue a notice to show cause and blacklist the petitioner. Finally, it was submitted that the inspection was carried out in the absence of the petitioner.;