SBCWP No.4161/09. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4161/2009. Shish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- April 20, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Deepak Asopa for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel. ****** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by non extension of the period of his contract. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Resident Engineer of Rajasthan State Road Development Corporation (for short, “RSRDC”) in the order dated 8/4/2009 has clearly admitted that recovery of toll tax remained affected due to Gujar agitation from 23/5/2008 for 26 days. It was recommended that as per Clause 33, Standing Committee may be formed for resolving this dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has SBCWP No.4161/09. 2 cited the order passed by Chief Engineer of Public Works Department in favour of another contractor M/s.Dariab Singh, who in similar circumstances was granted extension of 27 days because royalty collection in his case was also affected due to Gujar agitation, which is on record as Schedule-A. Learned counsel cited the interim-order passed by this court in SBCWP No.9939/08 (Shish Ram Vs. State and ors.) passed on 26/9/2008 and argued that for the same reason, extension of time was granted to the contractor in the aforesaid for collection of royalty. Learned counsel cited clause 11.5 (a), (b) & (c), clause (3) of clause 11.2 and sub-clause (3) of clause 11.6 of Concession Agreement and argued that in the case of Force Majeure Event, respondents are bound to reimburse the Force Majeure Costs to the Concessionaire by proper extension of concession but before taking any final decision on that aspect of the matter, respondents have floated fresh tenders for royalty collection which is going to be opened today. Respondents have not taken up for consideration either of his prayers despite his persistent demand. It is also submitted that they have also not referred to the dispute of the petitioner to the empowered committee in terms of SBCWP No.4161/09. 3 clause 33 of the agreement. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and filed reply to the writ petition. He submitted that agreement in question was in fact between the Government of Rajasthan on one hand and RSRDC on the other and petitioner, who has been awarded contract by the RSRDC cannot be considered Concessionaire within the meaning of “Concessionaire” as defined in clause 1.1 in the above referred to agreement. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner was required to serve notice within one month from the date of Force Majeure Events as per clause 11.9 which he did not do. It is contended that clause 33 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner because there is no Concessionaire Agreement between the petitioner and Government and the said clause is applicable in the case of dispute between the Government of Rajasthan and the RSRDC. It is contended that contract awarded to the petitioner is valid upto 23/5/2009. Having heard learned counsel for the parities and perused the material on record as also the Agreement in question, I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. SBCWP No.4161/09. 4 No doubt, Concessionaire Agreement provides that Agreement is between the Government of Rajasthan and the RSRTC but definition of 'Concessionaire' given in clause 1.1 thereof defines that M/s.Rajasthan State Road Development and Constn. Corp. Limited, Jaipur as Concessionaire provides that it shall include its successors and permitted assignees expressly approved by GOR. Learned counsel for the respondents would although oppose such argument on the plea that there was no express approval of the government but this submission cannot be accepted because petitioner was not only awarded contract for one year but was allowed to run the same. There is no reason why when in similar circumstances the contract awarded to M/s.Dariab Singh was extended for 27 days, no decision has been in terms of clause 11 supra on the request of the petitioner earlier than inviting fresh tenders, more particularly when respondents themselves admitted that due to Gujar agitation, work of royalty collection remained effected and such incident was considered by them as Force Majeure Events and extension of time was given to M/s.Dariab Singh. Similar was the position of Shish Ram supra. SBCWP No.4161/09. 5 Respondents are accordingly directed to take a decision on the request of the petitioner earlier than finalisation of the process of fresh tenders in terms of Clause 11 or 33 of the Concessionaire Agreement. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil