Disposed

M/s Magadh Construction Works v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Aug 2017CWJC/9096/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation with supporting documents to the Principal Secretary for reconsideration of the revised estimate, including an opportunity of hearing, within two months.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation with supporting documents before the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, for consideration and decision with an opportunity

M/s Magadh Construction Works Vs The State Of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9096 of 2017

¶3

===========================================================

¶4

M/s Magadh Construction Works, a Partnership Firm having its Head Office at New Area, Nutan Nagar, Gaya, through one of it's Partner Shri Ram Naresh Sharma S/o late Ambika Sharma Resident of New Area, Nutan Nagar, Gaya, P.S. & District- Gaya.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶9

The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Chief Engineer(Traffic), South Bihar Wing, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna,.

¶11

The Superimntending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Magadh Road, Circle, Gaya.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Sherghati, Gaya.

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s

¶14

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad For the State : Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, AC to GA-13

¶16

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Date: 03-08-2017

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶19

counsel for the State.

¶20

In the present case, petitioner is seeking relief for giving direction to the respondents to sanction and approve the revised estimate prepared by the Executive Engineer with the help of the concerned Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer which was submitted on 6.10.2015 to the higher authorities and which has

¶21

not been taken into consideration and not acted upon.

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.9096 of 2017 dt.03-08-2017

¶23

¶24

Brief facts of the case is that petitioner has participated in the tender for strengthening of Chichaura More Tutukhi Usasdeora Road. The distant of the road was 12 K.M. The tender was not finalized by one and half years. Thereafter work order was issued for value of Rs.8,18,92,010/- but later on it was found that the condition of the road was deteriorated. The petitioner has approached to the Executive Engineer, who has requested the Superintending Engineer to make an inspection of the road in question. Thereafter Superintending Engineer directed the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer to prepare a revised estimate.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that same has been approved even by the Chief Engineer which is clear from letter dated 15.1.2016 wherein he has given details of facts that the condition of road has deteriorated and in such circumstances, rate is required to be revised.

¶26

This Court is not considering the merit of the case as revision of rate is nothing but is novation of contract that can be done by the mutual agreement of parties. As petitioner has claimed that there is a recommendation for revision of the rate so he will file detail representation.

¶27

In such view of the matter, petitioner is directed to file a

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.9096 of 2017 dt.03-08-2017

¶29

¶30

detailed representation before the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna along with supporting documents and Principal Secretary will consider the case of the petitioner from every angle and will take decision and pass a reasoned order. He will also consider whether there is any recommendation of the Chief Engineer for revision of rate or not. All process should be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation. It will be fair on the part of the Principal Secretary that before taking decision he will call upon the petitioner and his Officers and will give opportunity of hearing and decide the case on merit.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶33

Vinay/-

¶34

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 10.8.2017 Transmission NA Date

M/s Magadh Construction Works v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Magadh Construction Works 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buchi Kunwar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shivam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dhirendra Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s. Hemant Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Babajee Rice Mill Through Its Proprietor Amit Kumar Roy Vs The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

M/s Soni Medical Agency Through Its Proprietor Dhiraj Pandit Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.