Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - (1.) This intra court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21.10.2019 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the various letters/orders issued by the respondents herein seeking to invoke Clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement providing for levy of liquidated damages and risk and costs, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the appellant, a registered AA Class Contractor, was awarded work of Re-vamping and Rehabilitation of Sultanpur Sub-Branch and its Minors kms. 0 to 27.22, Bhonra Disty. System & direct off taking minors of RMC km. 9.04 to 25.22 & km. 43.5 to 57.5 & Jhalipura Disty. System & its Minors RMC CAD Chambal, Kota by the respondents under the agreement no.EE/2/2017-18. The date of start of the work, as stipulated under the agreement, was 13.4.2017 with 12.4.2020, being the date of completion of work. It has been case of the appellants that owing to certain contingencies either attributable to the respondents or beyond its control, it could not commence the work in time or complete its different stages in time. The appellant informed the respondents vide letters dated 11.1.18, 6.2.18, 18.2.18, 28.3.18, 6.4.18, 3.5.18, 24.5.18, 12.6.18, 14.6.18, 27.9.18, 3.1.19, 4.2.19, 16.4.19, 12.6.19 and 18.6.19 about the reasons for delay in execution of the work under the agreement. The appellant alleged that in spite of its repeated communications, the respondents through their notices/letters dated 3.6.19, 2.4.19, 18.2.19, 13.8.19, 16.7.19, 1.7.19 and 27.6.19 have threatened to impose liquidated damages under Clause 2 and Risk and Costs under Clause 3 of the agreement. In these circumstances, the appellant filed the writ petition with the prayers inter-alia that the orders impugned dated 3.6.19, 2.4.19, 18.2.19, 13.8.19, 16.7.19, 1.7.19 and 27.6.19 (Annexures-5 to 11 respectively) be quashed and the respondents may be restrained from imposing any liquidated damages under Clause 2 and /or Risk and Costs under Clause 3 of the agreement. Refund of the amount of Rs.16,12,663/- was also claimed alleging to have wrongfully been deducted under Clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement.
(3.) The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.10.2019.;