J.D. Builders A Partnership Firm vs HQ Chief Engineer Central Command & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Petitioner is a partnership firm, which deals in Civil Construction Work and is enlisted with Military Engineering Services. Petitioner was awarded

two contracts, namely, (i) Construction of Baffle Range at Dehradun and (ii) Construction work for Second Arty Regt at Birpur, Dehradun (Phase-

II).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first Contract, namely, Construction of Baffle Range was to be completed on or before 31.12.2020

and the said work was completed by the petitioner well within the stipulated time. Regarding the second work, namely, Construction work for Second

Arty Regt at Birpur, Dehradun, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the second work was to be completed on or before 29.08.2021,

however, subsequently, the said deadline was extended by the Competent Authority upto 5th March, 2022, due to collapse of the bridge leading to the

construction site and various other reasons.

Thus, according to the petitioner, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in executing the work, therefore, the remarks made against the name

of the petitioner in the quarterly work load return for Contractors that petitioner is not capable to handle more load due to slow progress is uncalled for

and is liable to be removed.

Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the Office of Chief Engineer, Military

Engineering Services, Bareilly Zone (respondent no 2 herein) has recommended to respondent 1 to remove the adverse remarks mentioned against

the name of the petitioner in the quarterly work load return issued on 17.03.2021. He further submits that petitioner had executed the work pursuant to

the first contract well within time and regarding the second work, he submits that the deadline, initially fixed, has not expired as yet and the Competent

Authority has further extended the deadline to 05.03.2022.

Since respondent no. 2 has himself recommended for removing the adverse remarks of slow progress mentioned against the name of the petitioner

in the quarterly work load return and now final decision is to be taken by respondent no.1 therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

respondent no. 1 to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, on the recommendation made by respondent no. 2 as early as possible but not later

than two weeks from today.