W.P.(C) No.13517 of 2013 05.
26.3.2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the letter of termination of contract dated 15.7.2013 (Annexure-18) and the letter dated 23.9.2013 imposing penalty (Annexure-20).issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Phulbani-opposite party no.4.
The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was awarded the contract work namely “Danekabadi-Sirkabarga Road for a length of 15.00 Km under PRADHAN MANTRI GRAM-SADAK YOJANA for Construction of road & CD works and Maintenance of the same for five years”.The date of commencement of the work was 12.01.2011 and the stipulated completion of contract work was 11.01.2012.
date of As the petitioner could No.complete the contract work within the stipulated period, the Executive Engineer-opposite party no.4 vide letter dated 15.7.2013 (Annexure-18).intimated the petitioner regarding termination of the contract work and requesting the petitioner to attend the work site for recording of the joint final measurements.
Subsequently, the said opposite party no.4 vide letter dated 23.9.2013, as per Annexure-20, intimated the petitioner that pursuant to the termination of contract work, 20% of the value of the balance work is imposed as penalty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 2 28.8.2012, passed in W.P.(C) No.15425 of 2012, where in a similar case, this Court has directed the competent authority i.e.Superintending Engineer, R.W.Division, Bhubaneswar, to examine the case of the petitioner therein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause-24 of the General Conditions of Contract in support of his contention that the case of the petitioner should be referred to the competent authority i.e.Superintending Engineer, R.W.Circle, Berhampur, Ganjam-opposite party no.3 for redressal of its grievances.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner failed to complete the contract work within the stipulated period, inspite of repeated requests and remindeRs.the Department had no choice but to terminate the contract and impose penalty, as provided under General Conditions of Contract.
It is however fairly submitted that in view of the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.15425 of 2012, the petitioner may approach the competent Engineer-opposite representation authority, i.e.party no.3 regarding its the Superintending with grievances, a detailed who shall consider the same in terms of Clause-24 of the General Conditions of Contract and take a decision in the matter.
Considering the submissions made, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the Superintending Engineer, R.W.Circle, Berhampur, Ganjam-opposite party no.3, with a detailed 3 representation regarding its grievances within two weeks hence.
If Superintending such a representation Engineer-opposite is party filed, no.3 the shall consider the same on merits and dispose of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Till disposal of the representation of the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the letter of termination dated 15.7.2013, under Annexure-18 and the subsequent letter dated 23.9.2013, imposing penalty under Annexure-20.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
mp ………………… S.C.Parija, J.