CWP No.2554 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2554 of 2009 Date of decision: February 17, 2009. M/s Shree Bala Ji Construction Co. ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Puran Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks a direction to settle and release the final payment for the work executed by it and to refund the securities and also to return the bank guarantee furnished by it pursuant to the agreement No.131 of the year 2007-08. The petitioner-company's tender dated 16.4.2007 being the lowest and after some negotiations, the Superintending Engineer, Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Circle, Bhatinda allotted it the work regarding construction of Storage and Sedimentation Tank at water works, near rose garden, Bhatinda. The work was allotted on 8.6.2007 (Annexure P-1) and was required to be completed within nine months at the estimated cost of CWP No.2554 of 2009 -: 2 :- Rs.218.25 lacs. The petitioner's case is that soon after the allotment of the work, it represented the authorities on 26.6.2007, 13.9.2007 and 1.10.2007 (Annexures P-2 to P-4) pointing out that no site was earmarked to dump the excavated earth and the site for S.S. Tank had also not been marked. The petitioner on its own alleged to have started the excavation and digging work, followed by submission of first running bill of Rs.39,19,518/- on 4.1.2008, followed by several bills including the final bill dated 27.1.2009 for Rs.1,15,82,766/-. To be precise, the petitioner's case is that it is only because of non allocation of a site where the excavated earth could be dumped, that delay in execution of the work has been caused, therefore, in terms of Clause 4 of the work allotment letter dated 8.6.2007 (Annexure P- 1), the respondents are liable to settle the final bill, make the payment and “refund securities and bank guarantees”. Contrary to it, the respondent-authorities, firstly, in their reply dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure P-19) to the petitioner's legal notice, followed by memo No.567 dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure P-21) have accused the petitioner of delaying the execution of the project on one false pretext or the other. It has been explained that since it failed to execute the work within the stipulated period, the same has been further extended on the petitioner's request upto 5.5.2009. The aforementioned documents further reveal that except the excavation of the earth work, the petitioner has done nothing and even the construction of parapet wall has not been started. Not only this, the authorities have observed that the petitioner, instead of showing any interest in the start of the work, is indulging in raising one or the other false claims or writing letters and legal notices. CWP No.2554 of 2009 -: 3 :- It is urged by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the contract period expired on 4.8.2008 and further extension was never formally communicated to the petitioner, the agreement between the parties stood expired and even no extension could have been granted after it became inoperative. On this premise, it is argued that the authorities are obligated to prepare the final bill, make the payment and return the securities and bank guarantees to the petitioner. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length and on perusal of the record, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The petitioner had entered into the agreement with open eyes, and is not a novice in the field. The fact that it has completed the excavation work, though delayed, further suggests that the non-availability of dumping site, if not an excuse, in any case was not a serious impediment to start the allotted work. The record does indicate that the petitioner was keen to complete the excavation work only and wanted to utilize the entire contract period for the said purpose and then to invoke Clause 4 of the letter (Annexure P-1) to secure the payment. The plea that the contract period could not have been extended after 4.8.2008 also does suggests the petitioner's reluctance to start the actual construction work. It is the categoric stand of the respondents and not disputed by the petitioner that the period for execution of the allotted work has been extended on the petitioner's request. If that is so, the petitioner is obligated to complete the work within the extended period. Similarly, the petitioner's plea that the extension of period was never conveyed to it, has no factual basis for the reason that when the petitioner itself made such a request which was never rejected by the CWP No.2554 of 2009 -: 4 :- authorities, makes it amply clear that it was within the petitioner's knowledge that the work was required to be continued and completed. Furthermore, in their reply to the legal notice, the respondents have also disputed the aforesaid plea raised by the petitioner. The petitioner's claim that the design and drawing of the parapet wall was also not supplied to it, appears to be an afterthought, as this issue has been raised for the first time on 1.9.2008 only. No case to issue the desired directions is made out. Dismissed. February 17, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge