IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.882 of 2008 The State Of Bihar & Anr Versus Ram Binod Chaudhary ----------- For the appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG – XI Mr. S.R. Sharan, AC to AAG XI For the respondent: Mr. Shishir Kumar, Advocate --- 5 18-3-2009 The petitioner – respondent herein entered into a contract for construction and repair of road. As per the contract, work was to be completed by 25.6.2007. Since the work was not completed till 4.3.2008, the contract was cancelled and the security and earnest money was forfeited. The total amount of contract was of Rs.2.59 crore. The petitioner has completed major portion of the work, for which there was no dispute and that amount was paid. The petitioner could not complete the work of Rs. 40 lakh only. It is the case of the petitioner that the work was delayed because of non-availability of bitumen. Bitumen was to be supplied by the Government but that was not supplied in time and, in the meantime, after terminating the contract re-tender - 2 - was made for an amount of Rs.80 lakh The petitioner supplied the reasons for delay and made request for extension of one month time to complete the remaining work in the balance tender amount but the request was refused. It is also the case of the petitioner that under similar situation contract of others have been extended. It is contended on behalf of the State that despite several opportunities given to the petitioner, remaining work of Rs.40 lakh was not completed. It is also submitted that the work done by the petitioner was not up to the mark. It is further submitted that in a contractual matter the jurisdiction of the Court is very limited. It is true that in a contractual matter the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited but at the same time it cannot be ignored that even in pure contract matters the State is bound by principle of fairness and reasonableness. Hence, the petitioner’s prayer for further extension of one month time ought to have been granted. - 3 - It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if one month time is granted to the petitioner, he will complete the remaining work of Rs.40 lakh as per the original agreement. With regard to the quality of work, it is submitted that the Government has right to get the quality of work verified before making final payment and payment was made to the contractor for the work already done only after due verification and this a new allegation made by the respondents against him when he filed this case. In the circumstances, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be allowed to complete the remaining work of Rs. 40 lakh within a period of one month from the date of commencement of the work. The petitioner shall complete the said work as per the old rate and shall not ask for any new rate or escalation. Question whether the security and earnest money is to be forfeited or not can be agitated at the appropriate proceeding. In this case the delay is caused due to non-availability of bitumen which was to be - 4 - supplied by the Government. Learned judge also noticed that if one month time is granted the Government will save more than 40 lakh rupees as re- tender was made for an amount of Rs. 80 lakh. It is also stated that even the contract as per the new contract is cancelled which will further escalate the cost. Hence re-tender of contract is not in the best interest of the State as the petitioner agrees to do the work at the old rate as per the earlier agreement. If the work is not completed within one month after the petitioner is allowed to complete the work as has been agreed, State is free to re-tender after cancelling the earlier contract made in favour of the petitioner. In view of these, we are of the view that no interference with the impugned order is required in the matter and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Neyaz/- (J. B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)