- (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for passing a decision taken by the authority dated 08.08.2014, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2806 of 2013, by which, the claim pertaining to disbursement of the amount in lieu of the work performed by the petitioner has been denied.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the notice inviting tender, two works have been assigned pertaining to two different agreements i.e., agreement no.24 f2 and agreement no.27 f2 of 2010-2011. The petitioner has started for executing the work for one reason or the other, the work in entirety could not have been completed, although the petitioner has been granted an opportunity by extending the time as has been stipulated in the notice inviting tender/agreement but the work could not have been completed. The petitioner has approached to this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2806 of 2013 for issuance of direction upon the respondent to make payment of the amount which has been incurred by him in execution of the work, in pursuance to the aforesaid agreement and this Court, vide order dated 03.02.2014 has disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the concerned respondent in order to take decision and in pursuance thereto, the decision has been taken on 08.08.2014 but the claim of the petitioner has been denied, against which, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) According to the petitioner, even though, the work in entirety has not been completed but the respondents are admitting the fact that the substantial part of the work has been completed, therefore, for the said part of the work which has been completed, the petitioner is legally entitled to get the amount. He has also referred to the inquiry report where this aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, while passing a reasoned order in pursuance to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.2806 of 2013, the concerned respondent has not considered the fact in right perspective and as such, said order is not sustainable in the eye of Law. ;