Ram Narayan vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner was given a contract to construct the road from “Marwari to Thaing Motor Road, Stage â€" 1 Workâ€. The time period for

construction of the road was extended from time to time, but it is an admitted fact that ultimately the petitioner did not complete the project.

Nevertheless the petitioner kept on demanding his payment from the Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency, which was never paid to the

petitioner.

Now ultimately the respondent has given a notice to the petitioner penalizing him for causing financial harm to the Department which is to the tune

of Rs. 1,68,10,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Eight Lakh Ten Thousand only) and the recovery has been initiated against the petitioner.

The short case of the petitioner before this Court is that under the contract executed between the petitioner and respondents, there is a Clause 24.1

of the General Condition of Contract which is regarding the dispute redressal system. Clause 24.1 of the General Condition of Contract is reproduced

hereunder:-

“24.1. If any dispute or difference of any kind what-so-ever shall arises in connection with or arising out of this contract or the execution of works

or maintenance of the Works there under, whether before its commencement or during the progress of works or after the termination, abandonment

or breach of the Contract, it shall, in the first instance, be referred for settlement to the competent authority, described along with their powers in the

Contract Data, above the rank of the Engineer. The competent authority within 45 days of arising the dispute or difference shall, within a period of

forty-five days after being requested in writing by the Contractor to do so, convey his decision to the Contractor. Such decision in respect of every

matter so referred shall, subject to review as hereinafter provided, be final and binding upon the contractor. In case the Works is already in progress,

the Contractor shall proceed with the execution of the Works, including maintenance thereof, pending receipt of the decision of the competent

authority as aforesaid, with all due diligence.â€​

The limited case of the petitioner before this Court is that the dispute has to be resolved by the Competent Authority, which has not been done in

spite of the application of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4, Mr. S.S. Chauhan very fairly admits that there is such a Clause as relied upon by the learned counsel

for the petitioner. Consequently the respondent shall appoint the Competent Authority to hear the petitioner and the concerned person which shall pass

appropriate orders within 45 days, as stipulated.

It is made clear that till such orders are passed by the Competent Authority, the recovery against the petitioner shall remain stayed.

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed.