1. Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. (JUIDCO), through its ChairmancumManaging Director, 3rd Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Chowk, Ranchi. 2. Project Director (Technical), JUIDCO, 3rd Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Chowk, Ranchi. 3. General Manager, JUIDCO, 3rd Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Chowk, Ranchi. 4. Project Manager, JUIDCO, 3rd Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Chowk, Ranchi. 5. Project Director (Finance), JUIDCO, 3rd Floor, Pragati Sadan, Kutchery Chowk, Ranchi. .......... Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Order No.04 Date: 14.03.2022 1. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, is ignored for the present. 2. The present writ petition was filed for quashing the e procurement notice, as contained in NIT No.JUIDCO/Tender/F.O. Bahu Bazar to Kokar/2870/2021/411 dated 4th October, 2021 (Annexure13 to the writ petition), whereby in furtherance to the order of closure of the earlier work order issued in favour of the petitioner a fresh tender has been floated for the same work even when neither final measurement (approved) of the work done by the petitioner has been confirmed nor payments of the work done has been made and further to hold and declare that till final measurement of the work is done and payments thereof are made, fresh tender for the same very work cannot be made. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, confines the prayer only to the extent of directing the respondents to take final measurement of the work done by the petitioner and to issue a certificate in terms with Clause 60.2 (conditions of contract) of the tender document for evaluating the extent of work executed by it. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities were required to confirm the measurement so as to 2 evaluate the work executed by the petitioner, however, the same has not been done by them despite several requests made by the petitioner on that issue. Clause 60.2 (conditions of contract) of the tender document clearly provides that in case the contract is terminated at the employer's convenience or because of a fundamental breach of contract by the employer, the engineer has to issue a certificate for the value of the work done, the cost of balance by the contractor and available at site, the reasonable cost of removal of equipment, repatriation of the contractor's personnel employed solely on the works, and the contractor's cost of protecting and securing the works and less advance payments received due in terms of the contract and less taxes due to be deducted at source as per applicable law, but till date no such certificate has been issued by the respondents giving details of the work already executed by the petitioner. 5. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the respondents, refers to paragraph nos.6 to 9 of the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioners' letter no.MPL/S//JHR/Kantatoli1/2122/6111 dated 25th June, 2021 itself suggests that final measurement of the work has already been taken in presence of its representative. Thus, the issue with regard to measurement of the work in question has reached finality. The final bill submitted by the petitioner could not be processed, as the petitioner itself submitted final account bill belatedly vide letter no.MPL/S//JHR/Kantatoli/2122/6204 dated 20th September, 2021. The respondents have already undertaken the exercise of finalization of the account bill with due scrutiny and verification/validation of the required documents. It is also submitted that a proceeding has also been initiated at the instance of the petitioner before the MSME Council under the MSMED Act, 2006. Hence, the petitioner has given rise to two parallel proceedings for the dispute relating to the work in question. The respondents are also facing difficulty in concluding the certifiable payments for the work in question executed by the petitioner due to nonsubmission of GST invoices and original copies of purchase invoices regarding procurement of bitumen/emulsion from PSU/oil companies exclusively for this work even after repeate