IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12968 of 2008 M/S SHRI V.P.SANJIV Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shanker Dayal Singh, Advocate For the Union of India: Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi C.G.C. ----------- 7 22.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. By a notice inviting tender dated 9.4.2005 tender was invited for provision of certain OTM Accommodation at Danapur. Petitioner’s tender was submitted on 3.3.2006 along with other contractors. Since his rate was found to be lowest he was issued a letter of acceptance on 27.4.2006 and the contract agreement was entered. But thereafter according to the petitioner some impediments came in the execution of work. One of them was that the petitioner was directed to use O.P.C.-43 grade Cement in the project work. According to the petitioner this was not readily available. Certain changes in the tender and its design took its own time and it came to be finalized only much later in the year, 2007. There are some trees standing perhaps at the place of work they also come in the way of execution of the project and no clear instruction has been issued. It is submitted that escalation in the price of materials which has been raised by the petitioner is also the cause for not starting the work and not completing it in terms of the agreement, within the time frame. A series of the correspondences have been made in this regard but as of today except for some - 2 - basic ground work nothing seems to have been done. When the respondents decided to take some coercive and decisive action in the matter, the petitioner has knocked the door of the High court by filing the present writ application. A prayer has been made in the writ application to appoint impartial arbitrator for holding a running arbitration for adjudication of long pending dispute. The abnormal delay in execution of the projection or contract is not attributable to the petitioner and to the extent the period of contract should be extended. Taking into consideration abnormal hike in price of material etc. there is also some indication in the writ application that even the contract may be declared to be unworkable. A counter affidavit has come to be filed by the respondents Union of India. They have said many a thing in the said counter affidavit with regard to the bona fide of the petitioner and about his commitment to complete the work. Their stand is that petitioner has not shown any seriousness to complete the work according to the terms and conditions of the contract which was awarded to him in the year, 2006. It is tactical writ filed so that no coercive action be taken without any substantive legal basis. Some of the materials and the evidence which has been brought on record by the petitioner itself reflects that some dispute subsists which required to be sorted out between the parties. How much of it is smoke screen or how much of it is bona fide, the Court is not willing to decide or certify for the reason that - 3 - the Court has decided not to enter into thicket of the dispute raised in the present writ application. Petitioner has also brought certain materials to show that the respondents authority are seriously considering resolving the dispute if there is so called cooperation from the petitioner in working out the contract and implementing it. There has to be give and take from both sides and it cannot be unilaterally and only on terms which the petitioner wants. Keeping in view of the urgency of the execution of the contract which relates to the defence establishment, the Court does not want to keep this matter pending at this stage. This writ application is disposed of with liberty to the parties to the dispute, to sit down together and enter into a negotiated settlement at the shortest possible time. If no common ground is reached then best course for the petitioner would be to raise an arbitration and the best course for the respondents would be to go for a fresh tender so that the defence establishment may not suffer due to dispute between the parties. This writ application along with the interlocutory application stand disposed of with the above direction/observation. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)