Abdul Gafoor Khan vs State Of Haryana And Others

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 29.10.2020 whereby Empowered Standing Committee has refused to adjudicate the matter on the ground that speaking order dated 22.05.2015 has already been passed.

Noticing all the arguments of the petitioner, a detailed order was passed on 08.07.2024 which reads as:

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Empowered Standing Committee-respondent No.5 whereby the claim of the petitioner for recovery of Rs.24,65,304/- has been declined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a contractor and various contract works had been issued to the petitioner for flood protection works in Tajewala Complex, District Yamuna Nagar in the year 2011. The petitioner had been allotted work for “repairing of TOE WALL, CC BLOCKS, APRON AND GUIDE BUNDS AT HATNIKUND BARRRAGE after floods of 2010.' An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent Department bearing No.331 dated 14.03.2011 and petitioner successfully executed the work which was completed on 11.07.2011 as per the PWD specifications without any defect in the workmanship in the quality of the work executed. Additionally, the petitioner had also been allotted different works which are detailed in para no.3 of the writ petition.

It is contended that owing to certain disputes as regards the work executed by the petitioner, the respondent Department had constituted an Expert Committee comprising of Chief Engineers and also engaged technical experts. The said Committee submitted its report and asper the said report, a recovery of Rs.10.07 crores approximately was worked out for all works at Tajewala Complex except for TOE WALL, CC BLOCKS, APRON AND GUIDE BUNDS AT HATNIKUND BARRRAGE. He thus contends that a speaking order was accordingly passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana in the Department of Irrigation and W.R. Department for effecting said recovery. It is contended that since the Committee of Experts had not found any deficiency in the execution of the work on the part of the petitioner, the due payments admissible to the petitioner were released. He contends that eventually the respondents started effecting recovery from the petitioner out of the bills submitted by him for the subsequent contracts allotted to him. The said deduction was challenged by the petitioner by filing a suit for recovery of Rs.48,82,808/-bearing Civil Suit No.149-CS of 2016 instituted on 20.07.2016. The said civil suit for recovery was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Bilaspur on the ground that the contract executed between the parties itself provided for a specific dispute redressal mechanism in the form of Special empowered committee and the petitioner-plaintiff was required to avail the remedy of dispute redressal mechanism before approaching the Civil Court. He contends that after the dismissal of the said civil suit in view of the maintainability on account of an alternative dispute redressal mechanism, a claim was submitted by the petitioner before the Special Empowered Committee, however, the said committee declined to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on the ground that a decision has already been taken by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Department of Irrigation and

W.R. Department.

Aggrieved thereof, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that the abdication of the functions of the Special Empowered Standing Committee was based on an erroneous reading of the order passed by the Principal Secretary since the entire edifice of the recovery was on account of the deficiency noticed by the Special Committee whereas the said Special Committee of experts had found no deficiency in the work executed by the petitioner.

It is thus contended that the Empowered Standing Committee should have examined the claim of the petitioner on merits and as to whether the respondents were justified in effecting any recovery from the subsequent contracts/works allotted to him even though all payments with respect to the disputed work i.e. TOE WALL, CC BLOCKS, APRON AND GUIDE BUNDS AT

HATNIKUND BARRRAGE have already been released. Learned State counsel, however, makes a reference to the averments contained in the written statement to contend that vigilance inquiry had been ordered and the recovery was being effected pursuant thereto. However, he is not in a position to answer the query with respect to the circumstances necessitating a vigilance inquiry into the matter after the Committee of Experts had already submitted its report. He prays for some time to complete instructions since the official deputed by the respondent Department is not conversant. The said officer submits that work in question does not relate to his sub division and he has just been assigned the file to be brought to the High Court. Such a response is unacceptable. Once an officerhas been deputed by the Department to assist in a particular case, it is expected that the said officer is well conversant with the file. Adjournment of cases on account of non-assistance causes undesirable delay. Hearing in the matter, however, is deferred to 30.09.2024 subject to deposit of costs of Rs.10,000/- with the High Court Environment Protection Fund.”

Learned State counsel submits that if this Court directs, a new committee comprising at least three subject experts would be constituted.

In the wake of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and statement of learned State counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent to constitute a committee comprising at least three subject experts to examine the matter and adjudicate petitioner’s claim. It is made clear that order dated 22.05.2015 passed by Competent Authority would not come in the jurisdiction of aforesaid committee.

The Court is sanguine that aforesaid committee would associate the petitioner. Let the needful be done within six months from today.

Disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of