A writ petition was filed to quash an order making deductions for security deposit and delayed work from a construction contract. The court noted the deductions were within the 10% limit specified in the agreement and found no case for interference.
None. The writ petition for quashing the deduction order was dismissed.
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 (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 2554 of 2019
….....
Md. Majhar …. ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others …. ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
…......... For the Petitioner : Mr. Shahid Khan, Advocate : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate For the Respondents/State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II : Mr. Gaurav Raj A.C. to Mr. Sachin Khan, AAG-II. ........
07/10.03.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shahid Khan assisted by learned counsel, Md. Razaullah Ansari and learned counsel for the respondents/State, Mr. Sachin Khan, AAG-II assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to Mr. Sachin Khan, AAG-II.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shahid Khan assisted by learned counsel, Md. Razaullah Ansari has submitted, that petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 04.07.2018 passed in Case No.01/2018, in compliance of the order dated 20.02.2019 passed in Contempt Case No.428 / 2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that respondent authority may be directed to pay of dues Rs.4,20,878/- against the agreement bearing No. F2/71/2013-14 dated 11.02.2014 and work order issued vide letter No.76/A/Zi. Pari dated 11.02.2014 for construction of panchayat Bhawan at Zamira panchayat, under Dulmi Block in the district - Ramgarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that petitioner came before this Hon’ble Court, as in compliance of order passed by this Hon'ble Court, respondents have passed an order on 04.07.2018 making certain deductions, which are illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court at page No.73 of the writ petition, whereby the respondent authority have deducted towards Security deposit of 5% to the tune of Rs.1, 05,062/- and towards delayed deduction to the tune of Rs.1,18,146/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that delayed
-2-
deduction has been made as the petitioner could not complete the work within stipulated time of eight months from the date of agreement i.e, 11.02.2014 till 10.10.2014, rather the last measurement has been done on 03.06.2017, as such, they have wrongly deducted the delayed payment, which has been allowed by the respondent authority as a time extension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that so far deduction towards security deposit at the rate of 5% is concerned that has been deducted contrary to the provision of the agreement.
Learned counsel for the respondents /State, Mr. Sachin Khan, AAGII assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Gaurav Raj has drawn attention of this Court towards that the agreement paper specifically Clause-2 of condition of contract at page-40 to the writ petition, which may profitably quoted hereunder:-
“ Clause 2 :- The time allowed for carrying out the work as entered in the tender shall be strictly observed by the contractor and shall be reckoned from the date on which the written order to commence work is given to the contractor. The work shall throughout the stipulated period of the contract be carried on with all due diligence (time being deemed to be the essence of the contract on the part of the contract or) and the contractor shall pay as compensation an amount equal to ½ % percent on the amount of the estimated cost of the whole work as shown by the tender for every day that the work remains uncommenced or unfinished after the proper date. And further to ensure good progress during the execution of the work the contractor shall be bound in all cases in which the time allowed for any work exceeds one month to complete one fourth of the whole of the work before one-fourth of the whole time allowed under the contract has elapsed one-half of the work before one-half of such time elapsed and three-fourth of the work, before three fourths of such time has elapsed in the event of the contractor falling to employ with this condition. I shall be liable to pay as compensation an amount equal to ½ percent on the said estimated cost of the whole work for every day that the due quantity of work remains incomplete provided always that the entire amount of compensation to be paid under the provisions the clause shall not exceed 10 percent of the estimated cost of the work as shown in the tender.”
-3-
Learned counsel for the respondents/ State has submitted, that nothing wrong has been done by the respondent authority and in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, reasoned order has been passed by Zila Parishad, Ramgarh stating therein at page no.72 of the writ petition, that the 10% of the agreed amount of Rs.22,46,526/- can be deducted under delayed work and security deposit. The amount, which has been deducted to the tune of Rs. 1,05,062/- towards security deposit and delayed deduction Rs. 1,18,146/- comes to Rs.2,23,208/-, which is less than 10 % of the agreed amount of Rs.22,46,526/- deducted in terms of liquidated damage as provided under Clause-2 of the terms and conditions of the contract, as such, this court may not interfere with the said order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad, District- Ramgarh.
Considering the rival submission of the parties, looking into the fact and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to issue mandamus in favour of the writ petitioner, as the deduction has been made less then 10%, which is enshrined under clause-2 of the terms and conditions of agreement.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus to quash the order deducting security deposit and delayed payment from the contractor.
Whether the deductions made by the respondent authority under the agreement clause are within the contractual limit of 10%.
Md. Majhar
State of Jharkhand
Kailash Prasad Deo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
