side to resume or complete the work despite reciept of notices. Even after the meeting convened on 13.1.2021, in which the petitioner had participated, he did not turn up to resume the work. It is stated that the petitioner's request for further time extension was not forwarded to higher authorities as the petitioner did not respond to the repeated notices issued to him. The demand for price escalation of pipe items and also for the extension of time was contrary to the decision taken in the meeting and the conditions of contract. It is stated that it is the result of inaction on the part of the petitioner in arranging and completing the work within the agreed period. The petitioner was responsible for executing the works of pumphouse, culvert, concrete canals and D1 and PVC pipeline works, out of which he had completed the works only to the tune of Rs.64,26,127/- as against the revised estimate of Rs.3,15,75,121/- which comes to 28% of the work financially. It is stated that even after the site conditions became favourable, the petitioner had not turned up to complete the work. It is stated that after 2018 flood, he had executed only the work of transformer yard and duct cable during the period of December, 2018 to 30.1.2019, cost of which was only Rs.1.5 lakhs. It is stated that even though extension of time upto 03.06.2019 was granted from the offices of the respondent on 27.11.2019, the petitioner had attended their office only on 10.12.2020, after one year, for executing supplementary agreement, that too, after several reminders. It is submitted that several works using DI pipes are going on and therefore non availability of pipes is not at all a genuine reason. It is further stated that the petitioner had furnished a photocopy of the order dated 15.09.2020 claiming that advance payment was made for pipe, which was found not genuine.
