Dismissed

Ms Sunny Construction And Co. Through Its Partener Namely Sanjay Rampal v. Road Construction

Jharkhand HC12 Jul 2018WPC/5455/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions filed by a government contractor challenging non-payment and non-measurement of road works. The court noted the claim requires factual determination and directed the Superintending Engineer to verify records and decide on payment and security release within 12 weeks after receiving a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer fresh representation; Superintending Engineer to verify records and decide on payment and security release within 12 weeks.

Ms Sunny Construction And Co. Through Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.5455 of 2016 With W.P. (C) No.5456 of 2016 With W.P. (C) No.5457 of 2016

¶2

¶3

M/s. Sunny Construction & Co., Jhumritelaiya. .......... Petitioner(s).

¶4

(In All writ petitions)

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶7

Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority, through its Chief Engineer, Third Floor, Kanoi Apartment, Behind Bihar Club, Kutchery Road, Ranchi.

¶8

Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Hazaribagh.

¶9

Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Koderma.

¶10

.......... Respondents. (In All writ petitions)

¶11

----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

----For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Indrajit Sinha & Vipul Poddar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Abhay Prakash, A.C. to A.A.G. ----- Order No.05 Date: 12.07.2018

¶13

The present writ petitions have been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to take final measurement of the work done by the petitioner in connection with construction and maintenance of road under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana ( in short ‘PMGSY’) from Khunta to Jamtiya, Nawada to Chandrapur & Paharidih to Chandawa under Package Nos. JH 1305, JH 1306 & JH 1303, respectively, and, thereafter, to release the outstanding amount to the petitioner along with statutory interest in connection with the said works. The petitioner has also prayed for release of bank guarantee submitted in the form of performance security for the aforesaid three packages.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Class-I Government Contractor. It participated in the tenders issued for the aforesaid works and on being declared successful, the said works were allotted to it and to that effect three separate agreements were executed by the Executive Engineer, Rural works Department, Works Division, Koderma (respondent no.4) with the petitioner. The letters of acceptance were also issued in its favour in the month of

¶15

-2-

¶16

April-May, 2008 under the signature of the Chief Engineer (respondent no.2). As per the requirement, the petitioner also submitted the performance guarantee before the Department at the time of start of the works. The said works executed by it have been duly entered in the respective measurement books by the concerned engineer of the department in phase manner. The petitioner has completed the said works as per the terms of the agreements, however, the final measurement of the works has not yet been taken. Though the petitioner has been made part payment against the said works, yet the final payment has not been made to it by the Rural Works Department. The petitioner made several representations before the concerned authority, raising its grievance, but no step has been taken in this regard except that the Superintending Engineer (respondent no.3) of the said department has directed the respondent no.4 to take steps for making payment to the petitioner against the said works.

¶17

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Rural works Department, however, learned A.C. to A.A.G. submits that since the petitioner’s claim raised through the present writ petition involves factual determination, an appropriate decision will be taken by the respondent no.3 in this regard.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the contents of the writ petition, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer fresh representation(s) with regard to all three works for getting final measurement done, for release of the payment as well as the performance security submitted by it in connection with the said works. On receipt of such representation(s), the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Hazaribagh (respondent no.3), after verifying the records and on seeking clarification from the petitioner, if so required, shall take an appropriate decision within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation(s).

¶19

These writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and directions.

¶20

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶21

Sanjay/

Ms Sunny Construction And Co. Through Its Partener Namely Sanjay Rampal v. Road Construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sunny Construction And Co. Through Its Partener Namely Sanjay Rampal v. Road Construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyendra Kumar Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Building Construction Department

Chas Anchal Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited Reprr Thr Its Mantri Jaydeo Dhibar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Director Fisheries Department

Chandra Shekhar Prasad Sinha And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Ms Sunny Construction And Co. Namely Sanjay Rampal Vs Road Construction

Ms Sunny Construction And Co. Through Its Partener Namely Sanjay Rampal Vs Road Construction

Lakshmi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.