Petitioner challenges Ext. P6 order issued by the Roads and Bridges Division, terminating the work awarded in favour of the petitioner at his risk and cost. According to the petitioner, even if the work was awarded, no steps were taken by the respondent authority to provide the work front, as a result of which, he could not carry out the work and therefore the termination is bad in law. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent inter alia stating that as per the terms of work order, the handing over the site was fixed as, “on or before 25.5.2011” and the date of completion was “on or before 24.9.2011.” It is stated that the petitioner failed to take over the site for the purpose of commencement of work and even though several requests were made to take over the site and to commence the work, no action was taken by the petitioner. Registered notices were issued to the petitioner on 2.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 with specific direction to take over the site and to commence the work. Thereafter, letter dated 14.6.2012 was served on the petitioner for a direction to commence work immediately.
3. The petitioner submitted a reply on 22.6.2012 indicating about the hindrance in commencing the work and to relieve him from the contract without any risk and cost.
-: 2 :-
4. It is further contended that non-availability of additional land has not restricted the petitioner from commencing the work especially the work of carriage way. The petitioner was aware of the site conditions at the time of entering into Ext. P1 agreement. The delay caused by the petitioner resulted in heavy loss to the Government.
5. Having regard to the fact that the factual statements made by the petitioner has been disputed by the respondent, I do not think that this is a matter in which this Court can give appropriate directions. This Court cannot adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of Ext. P6. All the factual materials are to be considered and evidence has to be taken for arriving at a proper decision regarding the correctness of Ext. P6.
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/