HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: _l’j_0N’ELE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA 8.. HON’BLE Mr. JUST!CE PRASHANT KUMAR MHSHRA wage) No.19osl2o1o PETiTiONER M/s. Kaiiash Sharma, Prcprietor, Shri Kaibsh Sharma, S/o Late Duli Chand Sharma, aged about 51 years, resident of Dhimarapur Chowk, Jindal Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chha'ttisgarh, through Principa! Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhawan, Secretariat, Raipur (C.G.) 2 Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, . Shirpur Bhawan, Behind Akashvani Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226122? OF THE ' CONstTUTtON OF INBIA Appearance : Mr. Anti Pendey, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy.Government Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (04.95.2011) The foitowing order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) The petitioner is a proprietorship concern. The petitioner was registered as Class “A-5" Contractor with the respondent- department since 21.08.2601. Vide agreement No.161/D.L./07—08, t'ne petitioner was awarded contract of widening and strengthening of Tiiga-Bhagora~Jamgaon road w.P.(C) Mamas/201a having iength of 14.50 Kms. In this regard, the work order was issued to the petitioner on 10.01.2008. The period of completion of work was up to 09.05.2009. it appears that on account of non-completion of work in time, a notice dated 12.10.2009 was issued to the petitioner calling upon to show cause as to why its. class may not be reduced on account of non—completion of work in time i.e. till 09.05.2009. The petitioner filed reply to the said notice. The concerned authority, after considering the reply, found it to be unsatisfactory, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.12.2009‘(Annexure PI1) was passed and the Class of the petitioner was demoted from Class “A—5" to Class “‘A—4" . lt is this order, which the petitioner has challenged in this writ petition; (2) Mr. Anil Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that reducing the class of the petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 24.12.2009 is an arbitrary action. He refers to the communication dated 17.08.2009 (Annexure P/3), in which, the period of completion of contract work was extended by the concerned authority of the State up to 31 .01 .2010. He submits that any action of the above nature in the extended period, which was allowed by the State authorities, was arbitrary and iilegal. (3) On the other hand, Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposes the above arguments. He refers to the Circular dated 19.1 1 .99, on which, the State authorities have taken the action for demotion of the petitioner to lower class. His submission is that since the petitioner did not complete the work in time, the authorities were fully justified in passing the order of demotion of Class of the petitioner. (4f ' We have heard learned counsel for the Parties at 'ength vxand have also perused the records of the writ petition. .v\ i, / W.P.(C) No.1908l2010 (5) Appendix 1 to Circular dated 19.11.99 provides jurisdiction to the registering authority to demote the Contractor/Firm to a lower class on certain grounds. This has not been disputed by Mr. Pandey. His submission is that once v the competent authority of the State had extended further time to complete the contract work as per provisions of the Agreement (clause 2), no such action during the pendency of such period could be'justitied on the ground of non-completion of work in time. (6) A perusal of the, memo date 17.08.2009 (Annexure P/3 also tiled as Annexure R71 by the respondents). would show that the period of subject work awarded under agreement No.161/N2007—08 was extended up to 31 .01 .2010. This was done in accordance with Clause 2 of the Agreement. This makes clear that the concerned authority‘of the State, on due consideration of the fact situation, extended the time of contract till 31.01.2010. lf once the time of Contract was extended i.e. up to 31 .01 .2010, any action On account of non- completion of work prior to termination of the said period cannot be said to be legal or justified. (7) in the present case, on the one hand, the State authority, has extended the time for completion of work till 31 .01 .2010 and on the other hand, a notice dated 12.10.2009 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be demoted to a lower class on the said ground and ,_ ultimately, the impugned order of demotion was passed on 24.12.2009 i.e. during the extended period of contract up to 31 .01 .2010. (8) On the face of above factual scenario, which has not been disputed by Counsel for the State, we are unable to sustain the order of demotion lof the petitioner from Ctass.“A-5” to Class “A-4" on the ground of non-completion of work during the period of contract, when the period of contract, which would also include extended period, was still under operation. ig/r ‘ WPJC) No.1908i2010 I ‘70 (9) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is aiiowed and the impugned order dated 24.12.2009 (Annexure Pl‘i) is hereby quashed No order as to cost(s). W w w 4 ,7 Prashant Kumar‘Mishra sUNn. KUMAR SINHA, Judge shyna