JOYMALYA BAGCHI,J. - (1.) Affidavit of service is taken on record. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he completed the work of strengthening Egra- Ramnagar Road from 0.000-10.00Kmp under Tamluk Highway Division in the district of Purba Medinipur pursuant to a work order issued in September 2013. It is further contention of the petitioner that as and when request was made by the respondent authority he had repaired the portion of the highway which was damaged. It has contended that such damage was not due to imperfect execution of the work but due to inherent deficiency in the sub-soil structure. Referring to Clause 17 of the contractual terms, Mr. Sen learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent authorities have not returned the security deposit in a phased manner as envisaged therein although the final bill had been cleared. It is however, admitted that the completion certificate in respect of the said work has not been issued as yet. This according to Mr. Sen is contrary to the terms of the contract.
(2.) Under such circumstances on 01.07.2016, the petitioner was again called upon to effect repairs of a portion of the highway in terms of the contract. It was also indicated that if such repairs were not effect by 12.07.2016 his security money would be forfeited. Similar notice was issued upon him on 08.07.2016. Petitioner contended that the work could not be executed due to circumstances beyond his control e.g. heavy rainfall in the locality. However, it is argued that the respondent authorities unilaterally forfeited the entire security deposit in violation of the terms of the contract. It is also submitted that the subsequent tender floated purportedly for repairing the damaged stretch relates to a different work. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities denies and disputes the allegations leveled by the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was duty bound to repair the stretch in terms of the contract and having failed to do so the security deposit was forfeited. He further submitted that the work order tallied with the repairs which the petitioner was called upon to under take. He has also submitted that the dispute between the parties relate to breach of terms of the contract and, therefore, is not amenable the jurisdiction of this Court.;