Disposed

Ms Kashyap Construction Co. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Shri Santosh Kumar v. Water Resources Department

Jharkhand HC1 Dec 2014WPC/3158/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public interest context, the High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition challenging a decision to terminate a construction contract. The Court found the termination communication premature and directed the respondent to measure completed work and pay due amounts within six weeks, citing land compensation delays as the cause.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is entitled to a final measurement of work done. If any amount is found due to the petitioner, the same shall be paid within six weeks.

Ms Kashyap Construction Co. Ltd. through… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3158 of 2013

¶3

M/s Kashyap Construction Co. Ltd. through its Managing Director Shri Santosh Kumar, Ghatshila Singhbhum East …

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand though the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Ranchi

¶7

The Chief Engineer, Swaranarekha Multi-Purpose Project, Water Resources Department, Adityapur, District- Seraikela-Kharsawan

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Kharkai Dam Circle Icha Chaliyama,Water Resources Department, Keshargaria, District-Seraikela-Kharsawan

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division-9, Ghatshila, Singhbhum East ... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Abhay Prakash, J.C. to G.A.

¶13

04/01.12.2014 Seeking quashing of letter dated 09.04.2013, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶14

Awarded the work on the basis of an agreement dated 22.02.2009 for construction of residual earth work lining and structures in OL-7 (Mahulia Minor) K.M. 8.250 of Mahulia Distributory, the petitioner has claimed that though, the clear-site free from all encumbrances, was not provided to the petitioner and therefore, the work could not be completed in time, vide letter dated 09.04.2013 a decision has been taken to terminate the contract.

¶15

Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though it has been accepted in letter dated

¶16

¶17

09.04.2013 that about 30% of work has been completed by the petitioner however, no payment has been made to the petitioner. Referring to letter dated 08.03.2013 it is submitted that, admittedly either the land was not acquired or compensation was not paid to the land owners till 08.03.2013 and thus, it is apparent from the record of the respondents that the petitioner faced difficulties in execution of the work under contract due to reasons attributable to the respondents.

¶18

As against the above, Mr. Abhay Prakash, the learned J.C. to G.A, appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that, letter dated 09.04.2013 is only a communication of the decision taken to terminate the contract and it is not the order terminating the contract. Several notices were issued to the petitioner, however, the petitioner could not complete the work and therefore, the department has rightly taken a decision to terminate the contract. 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to pass an order for final measurement for the work done by the petitioner and the amount due to the petitioner would be paid.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that, though payment has been made to the petitioner however, if any amount is found due, it would be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶20

¶21

A perusal of the materials on record indicates that because of non-payment of compensation to the villagers for the acquired land, they created problems due to which the petitioner faced difficulty in completion of work. The petitioner vide letters dated 12.03.2011, 04.05.2011, 14.09.2011 and 15.05.2012 requested the respondent-authorities for payment of compensation to the land owners and for taking necessary steps for providing clear site, so that it can complete the work. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have admitted the difficulty faced by the petitioner and, the respondents granted extension of time to the contractor. It is further submitted that the respondent-authorities asked the Land Acquisition Officer to expedite the payment to the land owners. From the record it also does not appear that a final decision terminating the contract has been taken by the respondents.

¶22

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to order final measurement of the work done by the petitioner, if already not measured. If an amount is found due to the petitioner that should be paid to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks.

¶23

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶24

Amit/

Ms Kashyap Construction Co. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Shri Santosh Kumar v. Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Kashyap Construction Co. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Shri Santosh Kumar v. Water Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Shahnawaz Ansari Vs State Of Jharkhand

Somari Mandalain Vs Jaleshwar Mandal And Ors.

Ramadhin Nonia and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Indian Statistical Institute through Its Director Professor Bimal K Roy Vs Collectariate

Mundrika Vishwakarma Alias Mundrika Devi and Ors. Vs Raju Ram

MD Shahin Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.