Deepak Manta vs State Of H.P. & Others

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sidharth Jalta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State.

The petitioner was awarded work of widening a road on 07.04.2022 vide Annexure P-1, which work he claims to have completed within the stipulated period of three months by July, 2022.

According to the petitioner, as per terms of the Contract, in particular Clause 8, within ten days of completion of the work, the Contractor should give notice of such completion to the Engineer-in-Charge; and within thirty days of receipt of such notice, the Engineer-in-Charge shall inspect the work and if there is no defect in the work, he shall furnish the Contractor with a final certificate of completion. Otherwise a provisional certificate of physical completion indicating defects to be rectified by the Contractor and/or for which payment will be made at reduced rates, shall be issued, but no final certificate of completion shall be issued, nor shall the work be considered to be complete until the Contractor shall remove from the premises on which the work shall be executed, all scaffolding etc. in connection with execution of the work.

The petitioner alleges that in spite of the said Clause, the 6th respondent, who was Engineer-in-Charge, did not do the inspection in spite of several requests made by the petitioner and ultimately Annexure P-2 (Request dt. 12.07.2023) was made to the Executive Engineer (respondent no. 5) alleging that the 6th respondent-Assistant Engineer had a personal grudge against the petitioner, and is not doing the test check deliberately and to get the test check done by the third party. When there was no response to even this request, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant Writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to get the inspection done of the work completed and to keep the 6th respondent away from the inspection work.

Reply is filed by the respondents, but there is no specific reply by the 6th respondent denying the allegations of malafide leveled against him by the petitioner in para-9 of the petition, therefore, the said allegation has to be taken as true.

The respondents have filed a reply denying the allegations in the writ petition and contended that the site of the work was inspected by the Assistant Engineer, but they do not state the date of inspection done by the said Assistant Engineer. It was further stated that upon inspection, the Assistant Engineer observed that there were certain deficiencies and he had directed the petitioner to remove the said deficiencies, but no material in support of this plea is filed alongwith the reply. No satisfactory explanation is coming forth from respondents no. 1 to 5 as to why in spite of Clause 8 of the Agreement, the 6th respondent had not done the inspection as alleged by the petitioner. However, it is contended by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the respondents are ready to get the checking of the work done by the petitioner through another Engineer.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is agreeable for the same.

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ petition is allowed and a direction is given to respondents no. 1 to 5 to get the inspection of the work done by the petitioner completed by another Engineer of the PWD Department within four weeks, in the presence of the petitioner. Respondents no. 1 to 5 shall also initiate appropriate action against the 6th respondent for dereliction of duty.

The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.