IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12782 of 2009 M/S MULTI ENGINEERING & SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION(MESCO) THROUGH ITS PARTNER, SRI PRADIP KUMAR, SON OF LATE GOPAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KATARI HILL ROAD, P.S. RAMPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF GAYA----PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE BIHAR STATE BRIDGE NIGAM LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PATNA. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE BRIDGE NIGAM LTD. PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA. 5. THE SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, WORK DIVISION, GAYA---RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Baidyanath Thakur, Advocate. For the Corporation : Mr. Nadim Seraj, Advocate. ----------- 03. 09.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for the Bihar State Bridge Corporation Ltd., Patna. 2. Petitioner Corporation is aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Project Engineer, Works Division, Gaya. He was entrusted with the construction of Barari high level bridge over river Falgu in 16th kilometer of Masaurhi-Okari-Telhara road in the district of Jehanabad. The work programme(Bar Chart) for construction of the aforesaid bridge is contained in Annexure-3 to this application. It appears from the contents of Paragraph-8 of the writ application that the work progress was behind the schedule as is reflected by Annexure-3. The Senior Project Engineer, Works Division, Gaya having noticed the delay in the progress of the construction of the high level bridge passed order bearing letter No. 969 dated 16.7.2009, Annexure-5 whereunder he rescinded the contract with direction to the petitioner to vacate the site so that the same may be entrusted to the other contractor for early construction of the bridge. 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that true it is that the - 2 - progress of the work was not as per the Bar Chart, Annexure-3 but the delay was not intentional as it was beyond the control of the petitioner on account of the area being affected by the extremists as also many other factors, which petitioner shall elucidate in the representation, which he proposes to file against the impugned order before the Managing Director of the Bihar State Bridge Corporation Ltd., Respondent No.3. 4. Let the petitioner file representation requesting the Managing Director of the Bihar State Bridge Corporation Ltd. to consider the causes, which led him not to execute the work programme, Annexure-3 in view of his undertaking recorded in paragraph-6 of the petition that he shall complete the construction of the bridge including laying of the approach road by December, 2009 and if the authorities are satisfied about the cause of the delay as also genuineness of his undertaking that he shall complete the construction work by December, 2009 then the authorities may take a lenient view in the matter and pass appropriate orders recalling the impugned order dated 16.7.2009, Annexure-5. Petitioner should file his representation within three days from the date of receipt of the certified copy, for which he should file requisition today itself and the authorities should consider the same within one week of its receipt. This order has been passed on the premise that the construction work has not been allotted to any other contractor. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.) - 3 -