HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTI Hon’ble Shri Dr Hon’bie 5hr! R. SGARH AT BILASPUR ‘irendra Mishra & \l. Ghandrakan JJ. W&l€§3§t‘£§9&§l§&9£®igii®§ Comm:- PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Present: (Writ Petition Under Anioie 22 Mls V {K Congtruction: ., Chhamagarh thrsugh its power Slo Late Sukh Lai Singh, aged holder ~ Mahésh Sirigh rney 56 years, Ric sarangarh, Tahsi! am, District Raigaih (CG) State Qam‘d uwn v Depar Naga! Chief Distric The I Saran aw. :mem, DKS Bhawarx, Raipur(C,G.) t Raigarh (CG) Panchayat garh, Di$trict Raigarh (C.G.) President} Nagar 8 of the Constitution of lndia) iunsei for the petitioner. Loch Nagar of Chhattisgarh: Through the Urmh Administrative nam- Panchayat Sarangarh, through the Municipai Omcer, $arahgarh, 1/ Shri Rakesh Pandey, cc Shri Vinay Harit, Deputg Oral 0‘2 i rder (Passed on‘ Per Hon’ble Dhirendra Mishra, J:- The petitioner has filed the ir eiiefs: n i 4-05-2oe9) starrt petition under Article 226 of the / Constitution of India for the foiiowing r‘ [View ’i. ’AG. for the state/respondent No.1. 5 u ‘ -. ‘ j N EW.W.W Wm .Wfc) u/ 9r r WW 111 2009 m WWW W®$R %31W311%¥T “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari therebv quashing the order ho‘1598/PWDI’2009 dated 3/4-2-2009 issued bv respondent no. 2 in ,the ends of iustice. 1U.2 The Hon‘ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to make payment of forfeited amount in the ends of iustice. 10.3. Any other relief which th s Hon‘ble Court deems {it and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 10.4. Cost of the petition”. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that in response to the notice inviting tender Annexure P—2. petitioner subn‘rtted his offer for construction of marriage haiL beautification and develapment of Ghoghra Naia. Accepting the offer of the petitioner. the respondent .— Corporation entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide A nexures P—S 8. P-4. The terms and conditions of the contract documents w re part of the agreement. The period for completion of work was six months The petitioner was not given proper lav out and other necessary design a d drum of the construction which is a condition precedent for commencing t e work and the work was deiayed on account of omission ancydom'mission f respondent No. 2 Nagar Panchayat. However, Nagar Panchayat, vide i pugned order Annexure P—1. dated 03/04—02-2009. terminated the contra with a further note that the petitioner shall not be given any contract work in future on the ground that the petitioner Medea ia . pHC-n n? WW,W W 31w Ina; WM> l 96. m ms: a mmmm 3’ WWw‘ %WWW fa‘vled to complete the work within the alloed ime He did not commence the work on the one pretext or the other. eferring o the Order—sheet of the Nagr Pnchayat cantained in AnneXe P—10, it was argued tha the respondent Nagar Panchayat was itself sponsible for delay i exeution of work. Contract has een unilaterally terinated b th respondent — Nagar Panchayat. 3t We have heard learne couns for the parties and pemsed the documents. 4. Frm perusal of the terms and conditions contained in ocument nnexure P—2, we find that clause-39 eowers the Nar Palika Pashad to impose penalty for breach of any contion of contract by the contractr. m g o o d A mp ag ri ci o Clause ’lO of the agreement also epowers the Naar Panchayat t terminate the contract} if the work is no completed within allott time. The agreement was executed on 0-11—2OO and the work was to be completed in 9 mons from the date of issuance wor orde W also find from the order-sheet that before terminating th contrac, the petitioner s rved with a show cause notice for not completing the work within time. 5. The dispute rais/ed by the petitioner that the work could not be completed on accountpf lapses on the part of respondent Nagar Panchayat is concerned. for deciding the aforesaid dispute, a detailed enquiry would be necessary which is not possible in a writ proceeding. The respondents have passed the impugned order Annexure F'-1 and terminated the contract of the Wastes a a - a. i ) y t t R t a a L‘r t re n c b m y e d el t ed 3E th of k r. e e t wa se 3a:mmaaj£ ¥m §awgt Wm petitioner after affording him opportunity of hearing on the ground that the work could not be compieted within aliotiled time as per agreement, we are of the opinion that no reliefs as claimed ir the instant petition can be granted as not maintainabie. and the same deserves to be dismissed dismissed: 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is 7. It snail be open to the petition r to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondents before the com etent forum for the reliefs claimed in the petition. Sdl- \x" Dhirendra Mishra. Judge ,_,—’ i Sd/- RN. CHANDRAKAR. Judge HieW WWW“ l W? Wt 200‘; Wu aim—aw \rawi-qwm WW mmmm ,4, mwnwm %ati—‘vcmai1%¥r