IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2925 of 2008 ------ 1. The Union of India. 2. Central Public Works Department through it’s the Chief Engineer and Project Manager R.S.V.Y Camp Office, E.Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-11. 3. Executive Engineer (CS)-III, Consultancy Services Organisation, C.P.W.D., E-Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. Chief Engineer and Project Manager, R.S.V.Y. Project, C.P.W.D. Patna. 5. Superintending Engineer, RSVY, Project Circle-II, CPWD, Gaya. 6. Executive Engineer, RSVY, Project Circle, CPWD, Gaya. ---- Appellants/petitioner Versus M/S Satav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. a company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at 1, Raja Apartment, Lokaki Road, Model Colony, Pune-411016 through its General Manager Abdul Fazal Sheikh son of Abdul Razak Sheikh, resident of House No.46, Anugrah Narayan Road, Patna-1. - - -- Respondent- Opp.Party ----------- For the applicants : Mr.P.K.Shahi, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 24th November, 2008. On 18th September, 2008, Letters Patent Appeal filed at the instance of the Union of India and its functionaries was disposed of by consent of the parties by the following order: “The senior counsel for the appellants and the senior counsel for the respondent are ad idem that Letters Patent Appeal may be disposed of by the following consensual order: - 2 - 1. The order passed by the Single Judge dated 25th July, 2008 is maintained subject to the respondent complying with the following conditions:- (i) that respondent shall execute the formal agreement with the appellant within one month from today; (ii) that respondent shall deposit earnest money in the sum of Rs.57,21000/- within one month from today in case the said amount has been withdrawn by the respondent. However, the appellants shall not insist for renewal or for execution of fresh bank guarantee for due performance of contract by the respondent since they have already encashed the bank guarantee furnished by the respondent earlier. Upon satisfactory completion of work by the respondent, the amount of bank guarantee shall be refunded by the appellants to the respondent without any delay; (iii) that respondent shall set up the site camp and mobilize men and machinery there within one month from today; (iv) that the respondent shall complete 5% of WMM and culverts within three weeks of designs and drawings of culverts being supplied by the appellants to the respondent; (v) that the respondent shall complete the work under contract within one year from the supply of designs and drawings of the culverts or setting up of site camp and mobilization of men and machinery, whichever is later. 2. The terms of the tender notice shall remain as it is save and except to the extent noticed above. 3. The parties reiterate that they shall abide by Clause 6.4.2 of General Conditions of Contract for CPWD Works, 2005. 4. In case of breach of condition nos. (i) to (v) by the respondent, the appellant shall be at liberty to file application for revival of the appeal. 5. Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.” 2. There has been total default on the part of the respondent in discharge of its obligations in compliance of the agreed order dated 18th September, 2008. In view thereof, the present application has been made by the Union of India and its functionaries for revival of - 3 - the Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, counsel for the respondent, does not dispute that the respondent has failed to discharge its obligations as was required to be done under the order dated 18th September, 2008. 4. In the circumstances, we are left with no option but to revive the Letters Patent Appeal, for which liberty was granted in our order dated 18th September, 2008 in the event of its non-compliance by the respondent. 5. MJC stands disposed of and Letters Patent Appeal is revived. 6. We took up the appeal itself for consideration. Since the respondent has admittedly failed to discharge its obligations despite an agreed order, it is apparent that the respondent is either not interested in carrying out the contract or not in a position to complete the work. The cancellation of the contract awarded to the respondent, therefore, cannot be faulted. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Single Judge on 25th July, 2008 deserves to be set aside and we order accordingly. We, however, clarify that this shall not preclude the respondent in pursuing ordinary civil remedy for monetary claim, if any, it may have against the appellants. Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil