IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4701 of 2009 M/S PEARTREE ENTERPRISES through Nagesh Singh, son of Rajendra Singh, resident of C-41/142, Safadarganj Development Area, New Delhi-16. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintending Engineer, North Bihar Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 04. 16.12.2009 Some basic facts are not in dispute. The work awarded to the petitioner was broadening and re-enforcement of what is known as Majhauli – Katra Road from Kilometer 0 to 12.80. Petitioner was the successful bidder and work order was awarded on 22.2.2007 fixing a time-frame of 18 months. The date for completion was 21.8.2008. The work was not completed, which is apparent from the various annexures and notices which have come to be issued to the petitioner from time to time by the Executive Engineer concerned in this regard. Finally the contract awarded to the petitioner was rescinded on cost and risk basis vide order dated 16.3.2009 contained in Annexure-23. This order has compelled the petitioner to come before this Court challenging the same. When the matter was heard for admission for the first time on 23.4.2009, many a facts were urged at the bar on behalf of the petitioner. The reasons for non-completion of the work within the time-frame are one to many which has already been recorded by the Court in its order in question. Keeping the difficulty expressed by the petitioner for non-completion of the work as well as a circular - 2 - issued by the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department that in matters where the works have not been completed for bonafide reasons the concerned Executive Engineer may on a request made consider extending the time period for completion of the work or the contract because re-tendering has its own perils. The Court therefore was of the opinion that respondents ought to have applied themselves to this aspect of the matter as well, since a categorical statement was made at the bar that the petitioner was willing to complete the work if adequate opportunity and time is granted. Today when the matter is taken up learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that from the counter affidavit and the stand taken by the State, there is no reflection on the observation of the Court, whether the request of the petitioner for extension of time for completion of the work in the light of circular dated 10.10.2008 (Anneuxre-25) was considered by the competent authority at all. Learned Additional Advocate General XI representing the State has some submissions to make on the issue. He points out that much after the period of completion of the work on 21.8.2008 an application for extension of time was made on 24.10.2008 and the extended time demanded was 31.3.2010. In other words the extended time frame or period demanded by the petitioner by itself indicates that virtually no work was done since work was awarded. The extension demanded is much as the original period of contract. The bonafide of the request of the petitioner therefore - 3 - speaks for itself. He also points out that some of the communications made between the parties brought on record of the writ application corroborate the above fact. The request for extension of time was gone into by the Executive Engineer and the reason why it came to be rejected is reflected in Annexure-20 to the writ application. Even thereafter the petitioner had been given indulgence of completing the work at the shortest possible time. In this regard a show cause was issued which is annexure 22 to the writ application and finally the show cause not having been found satisfactory, annexure23 came to be issued, which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ application. After considering the submissions made at the bar on behalf of contesting parties as well as the annexures which have been noted in the earlier part of the order, the Court has not hesitation in recording that there was occasion and material available with the respondents which compelled them to pass the order impugned. How much of it is due to the reasons submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a matter which cannot be readily decided in the present writ application. If what has been urged and has been reflected in the order dated 23.4.2009 is correct then, those are matters of evidence and inquiry which can at best be looked into or decided by invoking the clause for arbitration provided in the contract itself. In view of the above and with the dispute of the kind in question this Court is not inclined to quash annexure 23 but would not come in the way of the petitioner, if he so wants, to approach the - 4 - competent authority, which the Court is informed is Tribunal constituted by the State for resolution of the dispute, which is the subject matter in the present writ application. A submission is made at the bar by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in case the dispute is raised before the so-called Tribunal the same will be decided within a reasonable time- frame. The Court has no hesitation in acceding to such a request because an early resolution of dispute would be both, in the interest of State as well as the petitioner. The writ application stands disposed of. There is no impediment in the way of the State to take up any follow-up action which may be advised to them in this regard. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)