IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9308 of 2009 RAM BINOD CHAUDHARY BUILDERS PVT LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 11.8.2009 In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing the letter dated 9.6.2009 bearing letter no.784 issued by respondent no.3 whereby the agreement dated 25.4.2007 in relation to the construction of Muzaffarpur-Rawa Ghat Road, Muzaffarpur (0-4 Km) has been rescinded and the security amount deposited was forfeited with the direction that the remaining work should be done at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks quashing the letter dated 25.6.2009 bearing letter no.904 whereby respondent no.3 wrote to Senior Bank Manager, Central Bank of India to invoke Bank guarantee and issued D.D./Cheque in favour of respondent no.3. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 25.6.2009 registered as Kazi Muhammadpur (Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case No.89/09. The petitioner was given work order on 31.3.2007 for strengthening of Muzaffarpur-Rewa Ghat Road,(04 Km) vide agreement no.01F2 of 2007-08. The petitioner states that it could not complete the work in time as the respondents failed to make available the required bitumen in time. The work was to be completed by 25.6.2007. However, the respondents granted extension upto March 2008 for completing the work. As the petitioner did not complete the work even in 2 extended period, the agreement was rescinded. Thereafter the petitioner moved this court in writ jurisdiction and this court by order dated 21.7.2008 passed in C.W.J.C.No.5518 of 2008 quashed the rescinding of the agreement and granted one month’s time to the petitioner to complete the work. Thereafter the department went in appeal being L.P.A.No.882 of 2008 and a Division Bench of this court by order dated 18.3.2009 granted one month’s time to the petitioner to complete the work as re-tender of contract is not in the best interest of the State. However, the Division Bench observed that if the work is not completed within one month, the State would be free to re-tender after canceling the earlier contract made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner asserts in paragraph 31 and 32 of the writ petition that it has completed the work. Learned counsel for the respondents states that they rescinded the agreement as the petitioner failed to complete the work within time granted by this court. He further submits that even the additional period of one month, the petitioner could not complete the work. He submits that the respondent authorities would verify whether the petitioner has completed the work or not and in any view of the matter, the work is of sub-standard. It appears that the agreement has been rescinded on 9.6.2009 and this writ petition has been filed on 4.8.2009 asserting that the work has been completed as per direction of this court. However, it would be open to the respondent authorities to verify 3 KHAN the work of the petitioner and to invoke penalty clause since the petitioner ought to have completed the work on 25.6.2007. After hearing counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that in case the petitioner has completed the work, re-tender for the same work has become redundant. It would be open to the respondent authorities to evaluate the damage incurred after due verification of the quality of work done by the petitioner against the security/pending bill. In case the petitioner files a representation before the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, respondent no.1 for payment of bill, earnest money etc. within four weeks from today for release of earnest money, he would dispose of the same in accordance with law. Till then the respondent authorities are restrained from invoking the Bank guarantee of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)