Dismissed

Krishna Kumar Singh v. The Dy Chairman Ranchi Regional Development Authority And Ors.

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2015WPC/3910/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a contractor challenging the termination of a work agreement and forfeiture of security deposit. The Court held that there was no contractual provision making advance payment a condition for commencing work and found no infirmity in the termination order due to the petitioner's failure to start work for a year.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no infirmity found in the impugned order dated 21.05.2013 terminating the agreement.

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs The Dy Chairman… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3910 of 2013

¶3

Krishna Kumar Singh, S/O Late Chandramoleshwar Singh, R/O Indrapuri Road, Sukhdeo Nagar, Ratu Road, PS Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi …

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Dy. Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (in short R.R.D.A) Katchery Road, Ranchi

¶7

The Secretary, R.R.D.A. Katchery Road, Ranchi

¶8

The Executive Engineer, R.R.D.A. Katchery Road, Ranchi ... Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶10

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶11

04/06.01.2015 Aggrieved by order contained in Memo No. 706 dated 21.05.2013 whereby the agreement has been terminated and the security deposit has been forfeited, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Clause 10 of NIT submits that, only upon availability of fund, the respondent was required to invite tender and enter into the agreement. Inspite of several reminders to the respondent- Ranchi Regional Development Authority(R.R.D.A), no fund was provided to the petitioner and thus, the work under the agreement could not commence. In these facts, it is submitted that for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the petitioner could not complete the work and therefore, the respondent-R.R.D.A. is not justified in terminating the contract.

¶13

Relying on the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the learned counsel for the respondent-R.R.D.A. submits that, though the schedule completion period under the agreement was 90 days, inspite of repeated notices, the petitioner did not even commence the work and therefore, vide order dated 21.05.2013, the agreement executed between R.R.D.A. and petitioner has been terminated.

¶14

I have carefully considered the submissions of the

¶15

¶16

learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. From the materials on record it appears that after the agreement bearing no. F 2-2/2012-13 was executed and work order was issued vide letter dated 22.06.2012, the letters dated 10.10.2012, 12.02.2013 and 05.02.2013 were issued to the petitioner besides, the press release dated 06.03.2013 directing the petitioner to start the work under agreement. The work was not started by the petitioner even for about 1 year and therefore, vide letter dated 21.05.2013 the agreement has been terminated and the security deposit has been forfeited. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that inspite of repeated request fund was not provided to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not commence the work. I find no substance in the contention. There is no provision under the agreement or under the NIT which provides that a contractor would commence work under the agreement only upon making advance payment by the respondent-R.R.D.A.

¶17

From the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.05.2013 and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶18

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶19

Amit/N.A.F.R

Krishna Kumar Singh v. The Dy Chairman Ranchi Regional Development Authority And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Singh v. The Dy Chairman Ranchi Regional Development Authority And Ors.

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

Nawnit Kumar Dwivedi Vs District Administration

Parwati Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Zaidul Haque Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Amrita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Others

Ms a K Travels through Its Proprietor Sri Arbind Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs Health Medical Education And Family Welfare Dept

Ranjan Kumar Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation Ranchi And Ors.