- (1.) THIS appeal would relate to construction of a gangway at the Judges' Court, Krishnagar. The State floated a tender in 1997 -1998. The appellant ultimately succeeded in getting the work order being the successful tenderer. The value of the work was Rs. 17,00,921/ -. The tender was ultimately accepted for Rs. 13,65,669/ -. The appellant deposited Rs. 20,000/ - and Rs. 7,313/ - respectively as earnest money as condition precedent to complete the said work within two months. Initially he received drawing on February 24, 1998. He would claim, although he arranged labour on March 3, 1998, the State was not prepared to perform their obligation. The Executive Engineer gave the plan on October 8, 1998. The appellant received cement on November 26, 1998 and he completed the work on January 12, 1999. The contractor, however, claimed for idle labour, security deposit and retention of additional work as also the loss of profit amounting to Rs. 19,96,512/ -.
(2.) THE State denied each and every allegation by filing their Written Statement. According to the State, the contractor abandoned the work in the midway. The contractor was supposed to use steel shuttering, whereas the contractor used wooden planks thereby resulting in uneven roof, being constructed. The appellant/plaintiff examined him to support his claim. During deposition he submitted, the materials supplied by the State was not satisfactory. The State on the other hand was not satisfied about the material used by the contractor and the quality of work. The learned Judge came to conclusion, plaintiff could not prove his case. Hence this appeal at the instance of the contractor. From the facts narrated above, we would not have interfered had there been no admission on the part of the State in the Written Statement. In the written statement the State admitted, a sum of Rs. 2,82,844/ - would be just and payable to the contractor after measurement of the work so far done by him. We are also impressed with the fact, despite the contractor abandoning the work as claimed by the State, the Authority never terminated the original contract. The work was completed on January 12, 1999 as claimed by the contractor. There was no serious dispute as regards the dates, however, the extent of work is in dispute. Almost 15 years have passed in between. We asked the parties to be present. Accordingly, the appellant is personally present, whereas the present Executive Engineer -II, P.W.D. Nadia Division, is present with instruction. We feel, interest of justice would be sub -served if we pass a decree for Rs. 5 lacs lump sum inclusive of interest and costs. On a query made by this Court the Executive Engineer would pray for three months time to pay off the dues. Mr. Prabir Kumar Chaudhuri, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits, we should give him three months time from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
(3.) SUCH prayer is not acceded to. The judgment and decree is pronounced in open Court. Hence, the State must pay the amount within three months from the date. The appellant accepts the amount in full and final settlement. We make it clear, the time prayed for on behalf of the State is in reply to a query made by this Court and must not be construed to be admission of the decree and the State would be free to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. With the above observations the appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs.;