IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7584 of 2009 S.S.CONSTRUCTION(P) LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 09.07.2009 The petitioner has come against communication dated 9.5.2009 of Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Madhubani addressed to Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Mayur Tower, Maurya Lok, Patna whereby a request has been made to make payment of Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore ten lacs only) of B. G. No. 4 of 2009 and Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty two lacs only) of B.G. No. 17 of 2008 dated 3.12.2008 as the amounts were lying with the bank in lieu of performance guarantee. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the agreement no. SBDI of 06-07 dated 7.3.2007, it started reconstruction of Madhepur- Tanuria-Andhrathadi 0-35 KM. He submits that he placed bank guarantees as mentioned aforesaid in lieu of due performance. It is submitted that as per circular dated 10.10.2008 the date of completion was extended up to 31.03.2009 which was orally extended up to the end of June 2009. The petitioner submits that he has almost completed major portion of the work and states that within a month he would complete the work. He submits that he has already extended the date of expiration of the bank guarantees. He undertakes that he would renew the second bank guarantee also. He submits that clause 2 provides for compensation for delay (liquidated damages). He submits that clause 3 provides for determining the contract in writing after giving due notice 2 in this behalf as provided in clause 4. Learned counsel submits that he has completed major portion of the work and the delay has occurred on account of unforeseen circumstances, so he may be provided a last opportunity to complete the work within a month. Learned counsel for the State submits that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to complete the work and even time has been extended earlier. He submits that once extension of firm comes to an end, the agreement stands terminated automatically unless and until it is again extended on undertaking given by the petitioner. After hearing the counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that the petitioner, if so advised, should approach the Principle Secretary-cum-Road Construction Department, Patna, Government of Bihar within ten days from today with an undertaking that he would complete the work shortly. The respondent no. 1 would be at liberty to consider the aforesaid application and may give necessary instructions or directions. In the mean time, for the intervening period till instructions or directions are issued by the respondent no. 1, the impugned order kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner does not approach the respondent no. 1 within the time frame the impugned order would cease to be effective. Kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)