- (1.) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the agreement for work in question was issued on 23.10.2009 with stipulation to complete the work by June, 2010 . Admittedly there was a typographical mistake with regard to specification of the sheet piling, which was corrected only on 19.1.2010. He further submitted that by letter dated 5.5.2010, Petitioner was asked to go slow in the work till the change in the design proposed, is approved by the higher authority. He submitted that there were other reasons also for slow progress of the work, which are attributable to the actions/inactions of the Respondents, and the Petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. In these circumstances, he submitted that the cancellation of the agreement and re-tendering is too harsh a measure, taken against the Petitioner and at best Respondents could foreclose the contract. He relied on Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation v. Indian Rocks, 2009 1 SCC 150 and Haryana Financial Corporation v. Rajesh Gupta., 2010 1 SCC 655
(2.) On the other hand, Miss Neha Prashant, learned Counsel for the State, submitted that it is true that there was some typographical mistake but the parties knew the correct specification. However, it was corrected on 19.1.2010. She further submitted that while asking the Petitioner to go slow with the work pending approval of the changed design, Petitioner was also directed to continue with other common works. Referring to the correspondences, she submitted that instead of continuing, Petitioner stopped such work and therefore it was ultimately asked to show cause and then after considering the cause shown by the Petitioner, agreement has been rightly terminated. She further submitted that the Respondents have been acting in terms of the contract.
(3.) It is true that initially there was typographical mistake but it appears from the correspondences that the parties knew what was the correct specification. However, it was corrected on 19.1.2010. It further appears that though Petitioner was asked to proceed with the work slowly in relation to the modified design till it is approved but it was directed to continue with the common work, by letter dated 5.5.2010. It further appears that on 5.6.2010, a letter was written to the Petitioner that the work was to be completed by 22.6.2010 but it appeared from the progress that it will not be completed by that time and therefore Petitioner was asked to expedite the completion of work. Petitioner replied to the said letter giving some explanations. A reminder was sent to the Petitioner on 16.6.2010. On 23.6.2010, a letter was issued to the Petitioner that instead of expediting the completion of work, Petitioner has stopped the work. Petitioner was asked to explain the reasons. Again on 24.6.2010, a similar letter was issued informing the Petitioner that if the work is not completed, necessary action would be taken as per the agreement. By letter dated 9.7.2010, Petitioner again gave some explanations. Petitioner was again asked to explain why action be not taken against it and ultimately by letter dated 21.7.2010, a notice was issued to the Petitioner to show cause as to why the contract be not cancelled as neither it completed the work in time, nor prayed for its extension or offered any fresh time schedule inspite of the earlier communications. Petitioner filed its show cause on 27.7.2010. Then by letter dated 10.9.2010, impugned in this writ petition, a decision was communicated to the Petitioner that it's agreement has been cancelled and Petitioner was asked to appear for final measurement. Petitioner was also communicated that a decision has been taken for blacklisting.;