MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. - (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this regard.
(2.) AS is evident from the record, that the work contract to augment the development of four laning of Rai Malikpur (Rajasthan Border) -Narnaul -Mahendergarh -Dadri -Bhiwani -Kharak Corridor Project, was allotted to the petitioner IVRCL Narnaul Bhiwani Tollways Limited Company (for brevity ''the petitioner -company ''), vide letters of allotment dated 23.1.2012 (Annexure P2) and 25.1.2012 (Annexure P3). Although the work was allotted to it, as back as on 23.1.2012, but till today, it did not start the commissioning of the pointed work. On the contrary, the petitioner -company filed a petition u/s 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to restrain the respondents State of Haryana and its authorities, from encashing the bank guarantee and to grant it time to furnish performance security. The concerned Court granted the period of 60 days to the petitioner -company to furnish the performance security, by means of order dated 5.10.2013. Not only that, the period of 60 days was further extended for another period of 60 days with the consent of both the parties by Additional District Judge, by virtue of impugned order dated 3.12.2013 (Annexure P25), which is as under: - ''In pursuance of the application filed on 2.12.2013, respondent appeared. The petitioner/applicant moved an application for extension of time of 60 days for furnishing performance security. In this regard statement of counsel alongwith Sh.Awinash Sinha, Manager IVRCL Ltd. i.e. petitioner company recorded. The Chief Engineer PWD (B&R) present on behalf of the respondent/department, has no objection but at the time wants protection that they reserve their right to recover damages suffered by them as per various clauses of the agreement dated 30.11.2012. I have duly considered the respective contentions of both the sides. The petitioner/applicant is willing to perform the work and on the other hand, the respondent/department also wants to get the work done as they have incurred huge expenses to float tender and in acquiring the land for construction of road from village Rai Malikpur, Distt. Mahendergarh to village Kharak, District Bhiwani as the same is in bad condition. The respondent/department is incurring expenditure of Rs.12 Crores for recarpeting the road as the work has not yet been started. In view of the statement of the counsel for the petitioner and representative of the petitioner company, further time of 60 days is granted subject to the condition that the respondent -department is at liberty to seek damages by referring the matter to the arbitrator as per clauses of the agreement. It is further directed that in case the petitioner -company fails to deposit the performance security within 60 days from today, then the department is at liberty to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.24 crores on the very next day without any order form the court. Now file be put on 07.02.2014 for further proceedings. '' Strange enough, instead of complying with the indicated terms & conditions, now the petitioner -company has straightway jumped to file the present petition to modify the impugned order (Annexure P25), invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) AS mentioned here -in -above, that although the job in question was allotted to petitioner -company on 23.1.2012, but till today, it has not at all started the commissioning of the work. The learned counsel for petitioner has miserably failed to point out any illegality or impropriety, muchless cogent, in the agreed impugned order (Annexure P25). Meaning thereby, the petitioner -company has filed the instant petition with a mala fide intention to further delay the commissioning of work, which is not legally permissible.;