RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of road for work of RMC from Chuck No. 0 to 85 of Sorri Kamla Amba Project. According to the terms of Agreement, the work was to commence from 22.5.1979 and was to be completed by 21.3.1980, which date was extented from time to time, sometimes on the representation of the petitioner and sometime suo moto. Vide order dated 30th June, 1982 (Annx. 10), the petitioner was informed that he has committed brench of contract by not completing the work within the time allowed and, therefore, Clause (2) of the Agreement entitles the respondent -Department for damages of Rs. 23421/ -, to be paid by the petitioner to the Government. The petitioner did not deposit this amkount. Thereafter, proceedings against the petitioner was taken for recovery of Rs. 1,20,437.38 by issuing a requisition on 15.3.1983. The Collector, Banswara rejected the petitioner's objection on the ground that if there is an Agreement between a private individual and the Government, and the individual does not comply with the terms of contract, the damages for breach of such contract can be recovered from the defaulting party, under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The petitioner also raised objection that the amkong has not been determined in accordance with law. Both the objections of petitioner were rejected by the Collector Banswara vide his order dated July 23, 1986 (Annx. 11). Thereafter, the S.D.O., Kishangarh (Ajmer) paissed an order of attachment for recovering a sum of Rs. 1,20,437.38, which consisted of Rs. 32,750/ - as damaged and Rs. 97,687.38 as interest and other expenses : totaling to Rs. 1,20,437.38. The petitioner has challenged issuance of orders Annexures 10, 11 and 12.
(2.) THE only ground raised in the petition is that the respondents being one of the contracting -party, had no authority to adjudicate upon the alleged breach of contract and to determine the damages for such breach. The terms of the Agreement did not authorised the respondents to be an adjudicator in his own case and, even if it were so authorised, such authuority would have been invalied being contrary to the principles of fair play and reasonableness. He relies on a decision of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills Thirthahalli, ecc. AIR 1987 SC 1359. Learned Counsel for the respondents appearing on behalf of the State has supported the recovery proceedings and contested the petition on the ground that according to the terms of Agreement, the respondents were fully competent to determine the question of breach and to assess the damages, arising out of such breach, to be recovered from the petitioner.
(3.) I have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties and arguments raised before me.;