R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) SINCE the subject matter of both the writ applications are interlinked with each other, both the cases were heard and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner did enter into an agreement with the authority of the State for widening and strengthening of Madhupur Lahajori Road from 0.00 Km. To 21.643 Km. Right from the beginning, the petitioner faced difficulties in executing the work on account of possession of land being not given in the wake of serious objection being raised by the villager on account of non -receipt of the compensation amount. Ultimately, final measurement was taken on 22.6.2009 by which time only 10% of the work could be done, payment of which was made to the petitioner but without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner, the work order was rescinded, vide order dated 9.8.2010 (Annexure 10) and ultimately, security was forfeited and penalty was imposed. Thereupon, the Executive Engineer, vide its letter dated 17.8.2011 (Annexure 11) communicated to the petitioner that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,29,40,620/ - as penalty and if the same is not deposited, then in that event, the said money will be forfeited in respect of other work being done by the petitioner relating to widening and strengthening of Satsangnager -Bhirkhibad Road. In that event, the petitioner did file a writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.6344 of 2011 seeking quashing of the order dated 9.8.2010 ( Annexure 10) as well the order dated 17.8.2011 (Annexure 11). A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that as per the agreement bearing no.20F2/07 -08 dated 10.3.2008, the work was to be completed by 8.3.2009 but the petitioner did not take any step sincerely to get the work executed. The petitioner in spite of being reminded repeatedly did not deploy adequate tools, plants, machineries and technical personnel which were necessary for ensuring timely execution of the work.
(3.) WHATEVER work had been done, that was found to be sub -standard not conforming the specification and under such situation, the work was rescinded and thereby a sum of Rs.2,29,14,620/ - was found recoverable. Since the security furnished by the contractor against the said agreement was not sufficient to adjust the amount, rest recoverable amount has been adjusted against the security furnished by the same contractor in relation to another agreement (ISBD/08 -09) relating to widening and strengthening of Satsangnager -Bhirkhibad Road.;