- (1.) Heard Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) In assailment is the judgment and order dated 08.07.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9559/2012, whereby the appellant/writ-petitioner's challenge to the rescission of its contract with the respondent-Department, has been negatived.
(3.) The rival pleaded contentions, in their bare essentials, have to be set out to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant/writ-petitioner, being a registered proprietorship firm, participated in a process initiated by the NIT dated 28.07.2010, bearing No.2/2010-2011 for construction of various buildings of Mahila Swayam Siddha Kendra Jamdoli, Agra Road, Jaipur and was awarded the work vide letter dated 11.10.2010 and pursuant thereto, an agreement No.330/2010-2011 was executed by and between the parties. According to the appellant/writ-petitioner, elevation of the buildings which was approximately 40% of the total work, was not provided by the respondents, on repeated requests. It also did point out, by a series of communication, the relevant layout plan, necessary for completing the work upto 20.08.2011, as mentioned in the work order. Cutting short the factual details, suffice it to mention that exchange of communications between the appellant/writ-petitioner and the department continued on this aspect and eventually, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Nagar Division-III, Jaipur, by his letter dated 30.05.2012, informed it that the proposal for extension of time of fourth span had been forwarded to the competent authority and that on provisional basis, time till 20.07.2012 was being granted. The letter, however, mentioned as well that the progress of the works executed by the appellant/writ-petitioner had been slow. Thereby, it was requested to speed up the work, failing which the department would be compelled to take necessary action under clause 3C of the contract agreement. However, by letter of the even date i.e. 30.05.2012, issued by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. City Circle, Jaipur, the work was rescinded under clause 2 and 3C of the contract agreement as the appellant/writ-petitioner, as the order would reveal, according to the said authority, had failed to complete the work by 20.08.2011, as stipulated.;