Disposed

Bheem Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Sept 2012CWJC/15782/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of work allotment cancellation and security forfeiture due to alleged inaction by government in executing agreement. Court avoided factual dispute on default, disposed of application via writ jurisdiction with liberty to approach appropriate forum for facts and damages.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with liberty to approach appropriate forum to decide facts and claim damages.

Bheem Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15782 of 2011

¶2

====================================================== Bheem Prasad S/O Late Musafir Prasad Resident of Mo.-Fida Hussain Road, P.S. and District-Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Deptt., Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer-In-Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary, PHED, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, PHED, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, PHED Department, Gaya Circle, Gaya. 6. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Jehanabad. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Lakmesh Marvind, AC to SC9 For Intervenor : Mr. Md. Faiz Ahmad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶3

7 20-09-2012 Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the letter of the Executive Engineer, PHED, Jehanabad dated 18.08.2011, as contained in Annexure-4, by which work allotted to him has been cancelled on the ground that, in spite of repeated reminders, he did not get the agreement executed within time. His security money has also been forfeited accordingly. It is not disputed that in response to the tender notice dated 22.02.2010, petitioner and others filed tender. It is also accepted that tenders were opened on 06.03.2010 and petitioner was selected as per terms and conditions of the tender notice. The letter of allotment of work was issued to the petitioner on

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.15782 of 2011 (7) dt.20-09-2012

¶5

2 / 3

¶6

11.02.2011. However, when the agreement was not executed between the parties, by the impugned order, allotment of work to him was cancelled and his security money was forfeited.

¶7

Case of the petitioner is that after issue of letter of allotment of work dated 11.02.2011, petitioner fell ill for some time and when he recovered, he started contacting the respondents and approaching them for execution of agreement, which was not done by them.

¶8

On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that after issue of letter of allotment, repeatedly petitioner was informed to get the agreement executed so that work order may be issued and he may start the work, but petitioner delayed in the matter and, therefore, finding no option, the Executive Engineer cancelled the allotment of work and directed for forfeiture of security money of the petitioner.

¶9

In terms of the earlier order of this Court, petitioner has brought on record the medical certificates and other communications sent by him to the respondents. On the other hand, respondents have brought on record photo copies of the letters sent by registered post to show that petitioner was intimated for getting the agreement executed, which he failed to do.

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.15782 of 2011 (7) dt.20-09-2012

¶11

3 / 3

¶12

After issue of letter of allotment of work dated 11.02.2011, as to whether the respondents had not got the agreement executed till 18.08.2011, or the petitioner defaulted in the matter, is a question which requires evidence to be led and findings to be arrived at in respect of this dispute between the parties of shifting of responsibility.

¶13

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not consider it appropriate to embark upon this exercise and go into this disputed question of fact.

¶14

Therefore, this application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum or Tribunal or before the competent court to get this fact decided and claim damages in the matter.

¶15

In view of the interim order passed by this Court in the case as far back as on 17.11.2011 itself, petitioner will be at liberty to file an application before the forum or Tribunal for passing a fresh interim order.

¶16

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶17

B.T/-

Bheem Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Jayant Pd. Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Alok Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Garg Welfare Society Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Santosh Kumar Vs The Bihar Rajya Jal Parshad and Ors.

Birendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Akram Jawed Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.