Disposed

Sigma R D Consultants Pvt. Ltd. through Its Executive Director Dhananjay Kumar Verma v. Chief Secretory

Jharkhand HC13 Aug 2019WPC/6633/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking release of outstanding consultancy dues. Court found contradictory statements in respondent affidavits regarding work completion and assigned obligations. Petition disposed of with liberty to submit fresh representation within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file fresh representation for consideration within 12 weeks; no specific payment order made.

Sigma R D Consultants Pvt. Ltd. through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6633 of 2012 Sigma R.D. Consultants Pvt. Ltd. through its Executive Director, Dhananjay Kumar Verma

¶2

.... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

¶5

Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶6

Executive Engineer, Planning & Monitoring Division -I, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶10

--For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : None ---

¶11

Order No. 05 Dated 13^th August, 2019 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for respondents-State.

¶12

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release the outstanding amount in respect of consultancy services for Gram Bhagirathi Yozna with interest within a specified period.

¶13

The factual aspect of the case as could be ascertained from the writ petition is that the petitioner was awarded work of preparation of Districtwise Project Report of Irrigation Scheme under the Gram Bhagirathi Yozna of the State. An agreement was executed by and between the petitioner on or about 09.08.2002 being Agreement No. 02 F2/2002-03 in respect of execution of the said work. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 4,05,000.00 by way of security deposit in the form of Bank Guarantee. The petitioner claims that on or about 31.12.2004, the petitioner submitted the Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) and had completed the project successfully. On 11.12.2004, the petitioner submitted the last running bill on the basis of entries made in the measurement book, which was duly certified by the competent authority of the department. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of submission of final bill and certificate on 11.12.2004, the petitioner was not paid the balance amount by the department which led the petitioner to represent the authorities on 17.05.2010 for release of outstanding dues of Rs. 28,58,099.00. Since the concerned authorities did not respond to the representation

¶14

¶15

submitted by the petitioner, he has been constrained to prefer the present writ petition.

¶16

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that the petitioner has completed the work of preparation of DPR for Rs. 2,23,68,159.00 and against the aforesaid amount, the petitioner has been paid Rs. 1,11,81,543.00. It has been further stated that since the petitioner has failed to assist the Water Resources Department in preparing necessary compliances and application for obtaining the desired financial assistance from the institutions like World Bank, NABARD, Asian Development Bank, etc., the amount of Rs. 11,86,616.00 along with security deposit of Rs. 16,71,483.00 i.e. a total amount of Rs. 28,58,099.00 was kept unpaid. It has therefore been stated that the claim of the petitioner for payment of the amount in question is not sustainable.

¶17

Vide order dated 17.06.2019, the learned A.C. to S.C. I was directed to clarify paragraphs 8 and 14 of the counter affidavit with respect to withholding of the balance amount on account of non-assistance by the petitioner for preparing the necessary compliance and applications for obtaining desired financial assistance. Pursuant to the order dated 17.06.2019 a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in which Paragraphs-8 and 14 of the counter affidavit has been sought to be clarified. It has been stated therein that after preparation of the DPR it was the contractor who was to prepare documents for obtaining the loan from financial institutions and follow up the process in terms of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), but the petitioner had not adhered to the same. It has also been stated that the work was to be completed by 14.05.2003 which was partly completed by the petitioner on 13.12.2004 and accordingly in terms of the conditions of the NIT if the contractor does not complete the assigned work in time 10% penalty is to be imposed on the agreement amount. It has further been stated that the deducted amount of 10% comes to Rs. 19,98,732/- and so far as the noncompletion of the document for obtaining loan from financial institution is concerned, the petitioner has been penalized with an amount of Rs. 11,86,483/- and the total amount of liability which rests upon the petitioner is Rs. 31,85,215/-.

¶18

¶19

Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is discrepancy in the counter affidavit as well as in the supplementary counter affidavit as it has been categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the work has been completed by 13.12.2004, however the same has been distinguished in the supplementary counter affidavit. It has been stated by the learned counsel while referring to the audit report that the work of assistance to the Water Resources Department in completion of the document for obtaining loan from financial institutions was never within the terms and condition of the NIT and on both the counts which led to deductions of certain amount from the claim of the petitioner does not rest on appropriate grounds.

¶20

It has already been submitted that the initially the work as per the terms and conditions of the agreement was to have been completed by 14.05.2003 and the same was extended to 31.12.2004 and since the petitioner had completed the work within the extended period therefore the department cannot penalize the petitioner for not having completed the work within the stipulated time as extended by the department itself.

¶21

Thus from the aforesaid it would appear that that instead of clarifying Para 8 and 14 of the counter affidavit, the supplementary counter affidavit seems to have made the matter more complicated since in the counter affidavit it has been stated that the work has been completed by the petitioner whereas in the supplementary counter affidavit a different stand has been taken to the effect that the work was to be completed by 14.05.2003 but the same was partly completed by 13.12.2004. So far as that part of the issue which has led to an audit objection and recovery of certain amount from the petitioner on account of non-preparation of the document for obtaining the loan from the financial institutions and to follow up is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted while referring to the NIT that the same was never one of the works which was assigned to the petitioner. Therefore it would appear that the claim of the respondents has been negated on the grounds which has been highlighted in the preceding paragraphs.

¶22

¶23

It would therefore be necessary that the respondents authorities reconsider the issue taking into account the claim of the petitioner with respect to completion of the work assigned to the petitioner within the extended time as well as the fact that the petitioner was never assigned with any work of assistance to the Water Resources Department in completion of the document for obtaining loan from the various financial institution.

¶24

In such view of the matter therefore this writ stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent No. 3 along with necessary documents as well as a copy of this order. If such representation is filed, the respondent No. 3 shall consider the same appropriately and dispose of the representation within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶25

It goes without saying that if the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine and the amount which has been claimed is admissible, the respondent No. 3 shall take necessary steps so that the grievance of the petitioner is redressed.

¶26

This writ application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶27

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶28

Sigma R D Consultants Pvt. Ltd. through Its Executive Director Dhananjay Kumar Verma v. Chief Secretory

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sigma R D Consultants Pvt. Ltd. through Its Executive Director Dhananjay Kumar Verma v. Chief Secretory

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

Charan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Kumar Neelam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manash Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Most Jeorani Devi Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Teko Sao and Ors. Vs Lalo Devi and Ors.