Writ PIL regarding delay in execution of road under NH75. Court found Public Interest Litigation served its purpose as work was near completion and disposed of the matter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (PIL) No. 2459 of 2016
Ram Chandra Keshri
.... Petitioner
vs.-
... Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A J. C. to A.A.G For the Resp.-U.O.I : J. C to A.S.G.I
13/14.3.2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for the State and counsel representing the agency-respondent no. 8.
This matter related to execution of stretch of road under NH75 from Murisemar-Bilaspur to Garhwa Road & Parwa Road having a total length of 77.725 Km, as per agreement dated 18th January, 2011 to be completed within 20 months by 17th September, 2012. Petitioner approached this Court complaining of delay and tardy execution of work. Thereafter, the case was monitored by this Court and orders were passed from time to time, orders dated 9th October, 2017, 30th October, 2017, 8th January, 2018 and 7th February, 2018, are for ready reference in respect of directions passed in the matter and the extent of work executed by the Agency. On 7th February, 2018, the matter was adjourned also taking note of certain points raised by the respondent no. 8 in relation to small percentage of work said to be incomplete. Engineer In-charge of the Department was directed to look into the matter and arrive at a conclusion whether execution of the work is complete in all
respects or not.
Both State and respondent no. 8 had filed their respective affidavits on 9th March, 2018. Executive Engineer, NH Division, Medninagar, in his affidavit, has made reference to several letters enclosed as Annexure-B series, asking the Agency to execute the work in its specification. According to State's affidavit, the contractor had not finished the side slope of the embankment as per the specification made in the agreement, which is necessary for the stability of the embankment. Notices had been issued to the contractor to rectify the defects. As per the respondent-State, progress of the work as on 5th March, 2018 was about 98% as per the requirement of the site. Respondent-Sate had deducted Rs. 3.14 crores from the running account bills since February, 2017.
Respondent no. 8 in its affidavit has tried to furnish explanation for delay in execution of the work on account of local law and order problems coupled with naxal bands and Geography of the area. The Agency has asserted that the work was almost complete on 31st December, 2017 and Engineer In-charge was requested through letter dated 22nd January, 2008 to issue completion certificate, so that the Defects Liability Period would start therefrom.(Annexure-R-8/A). He had also written to Executive Engineer to issue Authority Letter for lifting of bitumen required for repairing/maintenance of the road. (Annexure-R-8/B). He has been authorized to lift bitumen from Oil Company for repair of the work conveyed vide letter dated 24th February, 2018. The Agency states that it is bound to maintain the road for a period of 365 days from the date of issue of completion certificate. Minor pot holes in the road have been identified and would be repaired and maintained in a short span of time. The Agency had also written to Executive Engineer regarding completion of the construction work i.e., road, culverts, drains, side slopes etc. through letter dated 7th March, 2018. Sign Boards have been affixed at respective places as per the specification. Agency has through this affidavit has sought to convey that the work is complete.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by and large
road has been executed and few minor issue, if any, left are required to be addressed between the Executive Engineer, NH Division, Medninagar and the Agency after undertaking the measurement of the completed work.
Learned Government Advocate, Mr. Atanu Banerjee submits that Public Interest Litigation has served its purpose and can be disposed of now as the work is near completion. Engineer In-charge, NH Division would undertake the final measurement and identify the work, if any, still left for execution and take necessary decision in the light of the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement between the parties.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the instant Public Interest Litigation has served its purpose. It is disposed of as such.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J)
JK
Ram Chandra Keshri
The State of Jharkhand
The Secretary, The Public Works Dept., Road, Govt. of Jharkhand
The Chief Engineer, The National Highway and Road Construction, Jharkhand
The Executive Engineer, The National Highway and Road Construction, Garhwa Division, Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa
Apareesh Kumar Singh
Ratnaker Bhengra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
