1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1168 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.The Chief Engineer, Highways NABARD and Rural Roads, Chennai. 2.The Superintending Engineer (H), Highways NABARD and Rural Roads, Tirunelveli-2. 3.The Divisional Engineer, Highways NABARD and Rural Roads, Paramakudi. ... Appellants/ Respondents Vs. S.Jeevanandam ... Respondent/ Petitioner Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 30.06.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.10077/2010. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarfieid Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent by his proceedings Se.Mu.Ka.No.4035/2009/Va3/ dated 22.7.2010 terminating the contract and to quash the same and consequential relief, directing the respondents to extend the period of contract from 31.8.2010 for further period of 12 months to complete the contract as per agreement of the second respondent dated 25.2.2009. For Appellants : Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate. For Respondent : Ms.S.Vijayashanthi JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] The appellants have come forward with this writ appeal challenging the order, dated 30.06.2011, passed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the writ court in allowing W.P.(MD)No.10077 of 2010 filed by the respondent herein. The respondent filed the said writ petition seeking to set aside the order of the 2nd appellant in terminating the contract given to him. 2.When the writ appeal was taken up for hearing, Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants sought for an adjournment. Though the learned Government Advocate pleaded for further time, it is seen that earlier, only at the instance of the learned Government Advocate, this matter was adjourned for five times and therefore there is no justification in adjourning the matter to some time. Accordingly, when we declined to grant further time, learned Government Advocate, agreed to make his submissions. 3.Ms.S.Vijayashanthi, learned counsel, who has entered appearance for caveator/respondent, has taken notice on behalf of the respondent. By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission itself. 4.Learned Government Advocate contended that the writ court has wrongly placed reliance on the report submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Highways Project Circle, Madurai-2, for arriving at the conclusion that the work done by the respondent herein, namely the writ petitioner, is found to be satisfactory. It is contended that the report submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Highways Project Circle, Madurai-2, has nothing to do with the work supervised by the appellants herein. He would further submit that there was a collusion between the 3rd appellant and the respondent/contractor in awarding the work contract. 5.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ court. It is contended that the writ court has passed orders setting aside the impugned order only on the basis of the report submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Highways Project Circle, Madura-2 and such report was submitted, after inspection of the site and after taking necessary quality control tests. 6.Though it is alleged that there was a collusion between the 3rd appellant and the respondent/contractor in giving the work contract, we are of the considered view that the said allegation has nothing to do with the issue involved in this matter. As far as the case on hand is concerned, it is to be stated that the issue is whether the quality of the work done by the respondent/contractor was found to be satisfactory or not, as the order passed by the 2nd appellant, terminating the contract given to the respondent, was only on the ground that the work carried out by the respondent was not satisfactory. The writ court pointed out that as per the interim order passed by this court, dated 09.02.2011, in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010 in W.P. (MD)No.10077 of 2010, a report was submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Highways Project Circle, Madurai-2, stating that he has inspected the site on 12.03.2011 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 conducted necessary quality control tests and found that the work done by the contractor/respondent was satisfactory. 7.The fact remains that the said report was submitted by an independent officer and that too, a higher official of the Government, namely Superintending Engineer, Highways Project Circle, Madurai-2, based on the results of necessary quality control tests conducted by him. Ultimately, in the report, it is stated that the work done by the respondent/contractor was found to be satisfactory. It is relevant to note that such report was filed only after inspection of the site. Therefore, the writ court, rightly placing reliance on such a report, has arrived at a conclusion that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent terminating the contract on the ground that the work done by the respondent/contractor was not satisfactory cannot be correct and accordingly set aside the same. The appellants have not made out any ground warranting interference in the order of the writ court. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Chief Engineer, Highways NABARD and Rural Roads, Chennai. 2.The Superintending Engineer (H), Highways NABARD and Rural Roads, Tirunelveli-2. 3.The Divisional Engineer, Highways NABARD and Rural Roads, Paramakudi. gb rl/4 c- 2.12.2011 Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1168 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:22.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/