Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which the order dated 11.06.2019 passed in Original Suit No.17 of 2018 by the Court of District Judge-I-cum-Commercial Court, Jamshedpur has been assailed whereby and whereunder a petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that a money suit has been filed being Money Suit No.09 of 2011 praying inter alia for a decree of amount of Rs.10,17,45,402/- along with interest and cost of suit which the petitioner/plaintiff is claiming. Such claim has been agitated by virtue of notice inviting tender being 1/2005-06 dated 22.10.2005 by which the applications have been invited from one or the other bidders for construction of cut and cover from km.16.250 to km. 16.745 and residual open channel of Chandil Left Bank Canal.
(3.) The petitioner has been awarded the work vide decision taken as contained in Letter No.539 dated 17.03.2006, in pursuance thereto, the agreement has been executed in between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 for execution of work within the time stipulated under the aforesaid agreement. The petitioner has taken efforts to execute the work but due to the fact that the area where the work was to be executed since is falling under the forest coverage area, the hindrance had come which ultimately resulted into non-performance of the terms and conditions of the contract, ultimately the work could not have been completed. The petitioner, therefore, has filed a suit for money claim. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the petitioner came to know about certain documents which has been obtained by someone else under the provision of Right to Information Act which the petitioner has intended to bring on record by way of amendment invoking the jurisdiction of the Court as conferred under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which reads hereunder as:- "After para 1 of the Plaint, para 1(a) be added with following contents: 1(a) The Defendants published Notice Inviting Tender with respect to Forest Land in utter violation of the Gazette of India dated 10/01/2003 and in violation of the (Forest Conservation) Act, 1980 as well as Forest (conservation) Rules, 2003. Even the decision taken in the meeting of the standing committee of National Board for Wildlife held on 06/04/2005 in pursuance to order passed in I.A. No. 35 of 2003 in W.P.(C) No. 337/1995 and communicated on 12/05/2005 has also been violated. After para 1 (a) of the Plaint, para 1(b) be added with following contents:- 1(b) Special Secretary to the Govt. of Jharkhand Mr. Ravi Shankar Verma had issued instructions to all the Principal Secretary/Head of the Department/Divisional Commissioners, DDCs vide Memo No. 2097/A dated 05/09/2005 Vide this letter the Special Secretary has instructed all the concerning offices to invite ad execute tenders in view of the direction given by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in LPA No.524 of 2003 wherein the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has directed the State Govt. to invite tenders in the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramna Daya Shetthy vs. International Airport Authority of India & Others, 1979 3 SCC 489. The incorporation of Clause 14 in the NIT was in utter violation of the standing instruction of the State Govt., Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. After para 4 and before Para 5 of the Plaint, para 4A be added with following contents:- 4A. "The then Project Administrator (Mr. Bijay Kumar Tripathy I.A.S.) had written letter no.277 dated 22/02/2006 to all the Chief Engineers, all the Superintending Engineers and all the Executive Engineers under the subject "[1]" Vide this letter the Project Administrator directed not to do any construction work over the Forest Land prior to the clearance obtained from the Forest and Environment Department. It was also directed to close any agreement or tender invited on the Forest Land in the current financial year. The Defendants concealing the directions given by the Project Administrator entered into an Agreement with the Plaintiff on 10/04/2006 on a non-acquired forest land. After para 4A of the Plaint, para 4B and para 4C be added with following contents:- 4B. "The then Project Administrator (Mr. Bijay Kumar Tripathy, I.A.S) had written letter no.1349 dated 20/11/2006 to the Chief Engineer, Chandil Complex, Adityapur with copy to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi (under the subject "[2]" An explanation was sa sought from the Chief Engineer about incorporating condition in the NIT regarding solution of disputes related to land acquisition and forest clearance through the contractors. It has been specifically stated that land acquisition for any project is the responsibility of the Govt. department. 4C. "The then Superintending Engineer, (Er. Jayprakash Jha), had written letter no.1/pmc/[3]-30/2002 61/Ranchi dated 12/01/2007 to the Chief Engineer, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project, Chandil Complex Adityapur, Jamshedpur with copy to all the Chief Engineers, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand for information and necessary action and also copy to the Project Administrator, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project for information against his letter no. 1349 dated 20/11/2006 (under the subject "[2]" It was sa clearly stated in the letter that keeping clause in the NIT regarding solution of the disputes related to land acquisition and forest clearance through contractors was not appropriate. After para 7 and before Para 8 of the Plaint, para 7(a) be added with following contents:- 7(a) (Sri K.K. Singh) The Chief Engineer vide Memo No.762 dated 20/04/2006 had intimated to the Administrator, Subernarekha Project regarding the news published in the Hindustan Newspaper on 18/04/2006 and action taken by Regional Forest Conservator for executing work on the forest land without prior approval of the forest department, but, in spite of that no action was taken in favour of the Plaintiff. After para 24 of the Plaint, para 24(a) be added with following contents:- 24(a) That it is submitted that the Bank Guarantee was given by the Plaintiff as Performance Guarantee and the period of agreement expired on 09/10/2007, the Defendants were quite wrong in getting the bank guarantee revoked on 21/10/2008 and got deposited the amount of Rs.29,46,500/- in their bank accounts without the consent of the Plaintiff. This is unjustified and illegal. The Plaintiff has been put to heavy loss and the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount with interest and other losses for which claim has been made.";