AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ.—This petition seeks a direction against termination of contract given to the petitioner for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant and Effluent Treatment Plant at Maharaja Aggarsen Medical College, Agroha and also to restrain the Medical College from allotting the work to any other contractor in pursuance of advertisement dated 24.7.2011 Annexure P-28.
Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of tender notice, the bid of the petitioner was accepted on 6.8.2009 under which the petitioner was to carry out the construction within six months from the date of agreement dated 23.11.2009. The time was extended upto 30.4.2011 and thereafter no extension was given. There was correspondence between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 and as per letter dated 13.5.2011 Annexure P-25 college intimated the petitioner that further extension could not be granted. The petitioner was required to attend the site for taking joint measurements. Again vide letter dated 13.5.2011 Annexure P-26 it was stated that petitioner has suspended the work from September, 2010 and has failed to resume the work. By further letter dated 27.5.2011 Annexure P-27, the petitioner was asked to attend the site for joint measurements and the measurement was done by the staff of respondent no. 1. Thereafter, notice inviting tenders dated 24.7.2011 Annexure P-28 was issued for giving the contract for the remaining work. The petitioner was also black listed vide letter dated 3.8.2011 Annexure P-29.
According to the petitioner the delay was on account of not giving of environmental plans and structural drawings.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of respondent no. 1 in not giving further extension is arbitrary as delay was on the part of respondent no. 1 on account of which the work could not be completed. Under the circumstances, work should not be allotted to somebody else.
We are of the view that no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. The issue raised in the petition as to on whom the blame lies for the delay is a disputed question of fact. Whether respondent no. 1 is justified under the circumstances to terminate the contract and award the same to some one else depends upon the determination of the question whether the petitioner failed to perform the contract as per agreement dated 23.11.2009. This issue cannot be gone into in summary proceeding.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed without prejudice to any other remedy in accordance with law.