Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6637 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ratnakar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1; Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra for the respondents 2, 3 and 4; and have perused the record.
The petitioner was awarded a work contract of the value of Rs. 91,30,292.53 by U.P. Housing and Development Board, Lucknow which was to be completed by 16.08.2020. The bond in respect of the work contract was executed on 17.08.2019. The petitioner could not complete the work and therefore a final notice was given to him on 17.12.2020 to complete the work or else the contract would be cancelled and his firm will be blacklisted.
Upon receipt of such notice, the petitioner submitted an application on 15.01.2021 stating that due to his illness, the work contract could not be completed and, therefore, time for completion of work be extended.
By the impugned order dated 27.01.2021, a decision was taken to cancel the contract and impose penalty. While passing the impugned order, it was noticed that the work was required to be completed by 16.08.2020; that the value of the work was 91,30,792.53 which, if divided by the number of months in which the work was to be completed, would indicate that work worth Rs. 8.52 lacs was to be performed on a monthly basis, whereas the contractor in the entire duration could perform work of the value of Rs 17 lacs only. Thus, it was assessed that he had no capacity to complete the project.
The order impugned has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that special circumstances arose on account of Covid-19 pandemic and those special circumstances have not been taken into account while passing the impugned order.
Upon the aforesaid submission, on 28.07.2021, learned counsel for the respondents was granted two weeks time to file counter-affidavit. Though counter-affidavit could not be filed but the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the work contract could not be completed within the period provided by the contract and even if covid-19 pandemic is taken into account, the lockdown in the year 2020 was not for more than two months, whereas the work could not be completed even after five months of extra time and final notice, no fault can be found with the order impugned. Otherwise also, the proper course for the petitioner is either to raise a dispute for reference to the arbitrator as per the terms of the contract or to sue for damages.
We have considered the rival submissions, keeping in mind that the contract period was up to August 2020 and the lockdown was for only two months in the year 2020, thereafter, a final notice was also given to complete the work yet the work was not completed, in our view, the impugned order cannot be termed arbitrary so as to warrant interference in a contractual matter in a writ jurisdiction. We thus decline to entertain the petition but leave it open to the petitioner to take recourse to other alternative remedies, as may be advised.
Subject to above, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Sunil Kr Tiwari