Engineering Projects India Ltd. v. The Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17831 of 2016 ====================================================== Engineering Projects India Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprises) having its Head Office at 43, Scope Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 & Local Office at Flat No.202, R.S. Villa, Behind Rajeshwar Hospital, Kankarbagh, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District- Patna-800020. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation (Undertaking of Bihar Govt.), Kautilya Nagar, Patna-14 through its Director General of Police-cumChairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The Director General of Police-cum-Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation (Undertaking of Bihar Govt.), Kautilya Nagar, Patna-14.
3. The Chief Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation (Undertaking of Bihar Govt.), Kautilya Nagar, Patna-14.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation (Undertaking of Bihar Govt.), Kautilya Nagar, Patna-14.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rajgir Division, Bihar Police Academy Office, Chhabilapur Road, Rajgir-803116.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Prasoon Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA) Date : 19-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order contained in memo no.5163 dated 01.12.2015 issued by the Chief Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred as 'Corporation') whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been debarred from participating
2/11 in any future tender of the Corporation due to non-completion of Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir.
3. Brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the Corporation floated a tender for construction of Bihar Police Academy (Administrative etc., Civil, Electrical, PHED and other works including Green Building related works) at Rajgir. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner participated in the said tender process and he was declared successful. Accordingly, the aforesaid work was allotted to the petitioner and the agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Corporation for execution of aforesaid work on 15.02.2012. The work commencement order was also issued by Executive Engineer on 15.02.2012 itself. As per the aforesaid agreement, the completion period of the work was 30 months and the completion date was 14.08.2014.
There happened to be some non-cooperation on the part of the respondent authorities and they were not acting as per the terms of the agreement, the work could not be completed and the contract period was also coming to an end, the petitioner by filing an application dated 01.08.2014 prayed for extension of time mentioning all the issues in details. Thereafter, on 08.01.
3/11 supervised and concurrence was given for approval of time extension, but the respondent authority did not adhere to the aforesaid decision and approval. As the extension of time was not given, the petitioner vide letter dated 04.03.2015 made request to the Chief Engineer of the Corporation for extension of time till 14.08.2015. Pursuant to the said letter, the Corporation vide letter dated 20.03.2015 granted the extension of time to the petitioner to complete the work before 14.08.2015. When the work was in progress and the petitioner was facing several problems in execution of works, he made several requests to the respondent authorities but they were paying no heed. All of a sudden, the Chief Engineer vide letter no. 4844 dated 03.11.
2015 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why he be not debarred from future tender and also to terminate the contract agreement. Further the Executive Engineer vide letter no. 1043 dated 06.11.2015 issued showcause notice to the petitioner as to why in terms of Clause 3 of the contract agreement, steps should not taken to terminate the agreement. Pursuant to the aforesaid notices, the petitioner filed his show-cause reply vide letter dated 19.11.2015 giving the details of the problems which it was facing in execution of the work.
4/11 extension of time for further 12 months so that the work may be completed. But surprisingly the petitioner received an order contained in memo no. 5163 dated 01.12.2015 (Annexure 1) by which the Chief Engineer of the Corporation debarred him from participating in future tender till completion of the work. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letters dated 10.12.2015 and 21.12.2015 addressed to the Chief Engineer of the Corporation made a detailed representations mentioning all the facts and requested him to recall the debarment order, but the respondent authorities did not accede to the request. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Writ.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision in the agreement or any other law which empowers the Respondent authority to debar the petitioner from participating in future tender. The learned counsel further submitted that there is a serious breach of agreement on the part of the respondent authorities due to which the petitioner could not adhere to the time schedule mentioned in the agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that due to the aforesaid debarment, the petitioner is facing serious problems on day to day working as there are other tenders/bids in which the petitioner has participated and it has serious apprehension that
5/11 due to the said debarment, its technical bid may be rejected on this ground. The learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid order of debarment is prejudicially causing great hardship in day to day working. The action of the Respondent authorities is arbitrary, malafide and illegal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that admittedly the agreement was executed by the petitioner and the Corporation on 15.02.2012 and the work commencement order also was issued by the Executive Engineer of the Corporation on the same day i.e. 15.02.2012 itself. As per the aforesaid agreement, the completion period of the work was of 30 months and the completion date was 14.08.2014. However, the petitioner himself after having considered the pros and cons of the entire matter requested the Corporation for extension of the period for completing the work up to 14.08.2015 by its letter dated 04.03.2015 which contains the undertaking given by the petitioner mentioning categorically the time schedule for completion of the buildings in question. It has been assured that 11 buildings would be completed by 15.05.2015, 05 buildings would be completed by 15.06.2015 and 04 buildings would be completed by 15.07.2015 i.e. the total number of 20 buildings would be completed by
6/11 15.07.2015. It was categorically stipulated that structural work, brick work, under flooring work, plaster work and finishing work of remaining 22 buildings would be completed by August, 2015. However, the petitioner did not complete even a single building till 01.12.2015 and completely failed to comply with aforesaid undertaking. The learned counsel further submitted that even after lapse of 45 months, the work remained incomplete which shows that the petitioner has no seriousness and interest in completing the works of Bihar Police Academy as per the provisions of the agreement and, as such, the Corporation was compelled to take the decision of debarring the petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Contractor Registration Rule, 2007. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the order of debarment is proper and in terms of the agreement and Contractor Registration Rules. Hence, this writ application is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the material available on record and further considering the pleadings and submissions, it appears that in terms of the agreement dated 15.02.2012, the petitioner was required to complete the contractual works by 14.08.2014, i.e., within thirty months, but after lapse of about three years and nine months, he did not complete the said
7/11 contractual work in spite of several directions/instructions as stated above. Thereafter, the respondent-department took the decision to debar the petitioner from participating in any future tender vide order dated 01.12.2015. Even prior to issuance of the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2015, the petitioner had been warned in writing by letter no.691 dated 15.07.2015 and letter no.1043 dated 06.11.2015 issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, Rajgir Division. Besides the aforesaid two letters, a show cause notice was issued separately under the signature of the Chief Engineer of the Corporation vide letter dated 03.11.2015 before issuing the order of debarment dated 01.12.2015. The petitioner submitted its reply vide letter dated 19.11.2015 which was examined by the Corporation and, thereafter, the order of debarment was issued on 01.12.2015 in terms of provisions of Contractor Registration Rules, 2007 as well as different clauses of the agreement.
7. It is relevant to quote the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 for ready reference.
"मुख्य अभभियतता कता कतायर्यालय, भबिहतार पमुभलस भिवन भनमर्याण भनगम, ककौभटिल्य नगर पटिनता -14.
सकतारण आदश आदश सयख्यता- -...........भदननांक- .......................2015
8/11 भबिहतार पमुभलस एकदडममी रताजगमीर कद भनमर्याण कतायर्य कता कतायर्य आदश रू० 181.45,42,657 / (एक ममी एकतासमी कररोड पततालमीस लताख बिदयतालमीस हजतार छ सरो सयततावन रूपयद) कमी रताभश पर कतायर्यपतालक अभभियतता, भबिहतार पमुभलस भिवन भनमर्याण भनगम कद पतताक 150 (अनमु0) भदननांक-15-02-2012 दतारता मदरतासर्य ई०पमी०आई०एल० (भितारत सरकतार कता उदयम) करो ई-टिदन्डभरयग दतारता न्यूनतम भनभवदताकतार हरोनद कद आधतार पर भकयता गयता थता। इस कतायर्य कता एकरतारनतामता सयख्यता-1 एफ2/3 ऑफ 2012 हप। एकरतारनतामता कद अनमुसतार कतायर्य पतारयभि कमी भतभथ 15-02-2012 एवय कतायर्य समताभपत कमी भतभथ 14-08-2014 थमी।
(2) कतायर्य कमी पगभत एकरतारनतामता कमी अवभध में भिमी कताफमी धमीममी रहमी हप, भजसकद भलयद मदससर्य ई०पमी०आई०एल० करो भबिहतार पमुभलस भिवन भनमर्याण भनगम दतारता कतायर्य में पगभत लतानद हदतमु लगताततार पयतास भकयता गयता।
(3) मुख्य सभचिव कद स्तर पर भदनताक 09-01-2014 करो मदससर्य ई०पमी०आई०एल० कद अध्यक-सह-पबियध भनदशक एवय उनकद वरमीय पदताभधकताभरययों कद सताथ कतायर्य कमी पगभत कमी सममीकता कमी गई, भजसमें मदससर्य ई०पमी०आई०एल० दतारता भदननांक-14-08-2014 तक कतायर्य पयूरता करनद कता भलभखत आशतासन भदयता गयता थता. भजसकता उल्लदख कतायर्यवृत जरो पतनांक- 728 भदननांक- 29-01-2014 दतारता भनगर्यत हप, में भकयता गयता हप। भफर भिमी कतायर्य 14-08-2014 तक पयूरता नहहीं भकयता गयता।
(4) ई०पमी०आई०एल० दतारता कतायर्य करो पयूरता करनद कद भलयद उनकद पतनांक - EPI/ERsite/685/ BPBCC/002 भदननांक-04-03-2015 दतारता भदननांक-14-082015 तक समयवृभद्धि कमी मनांग कमी गयमी, भजसमें उनकद दतारता सभिमी भिवनयों करो पयूरता करनद कता भलभखत (Undertaking भदयता गयता हप। मदससर्य ई०पमी०आई०एल० कद इस पत कद आलरोक में उच्चि स्तरमीय सममीकता कमी गई। इस सयबियध में कतायर्यवृत गवृह (आरकमी) भवभिताग कता पतनांक-2018. भदननांक-23-03-2015 कद दतारता भनगर्यत भकयता गयता हप। मदससर्य ई० पमी० आई० एल० कद पतनांक EPIERsite 685 / BPBCC/1002 भदननांक-04-03-2015 दतारता भदयद गयद भलभखत कतायर्यक्रम एवय अन्डरटिदभकयग कद आधतार पर एवय मदससर्य ई०पमी०आई०एल० जरो भितारत सरकतार कता उदयम हप, कद भलभखत अन्डरटिदभकयग करो आधतार मतानतद हमुयद भनगम कद पतनांकएव०क्यू०- 1667 भदननांक 20-03-2015 दतारता भदननांक- 14-08-2015 तक समयवृभद्धि दमी गई।
(5) भनगम कद रताजगमीर पमयडल कद कतायर्यपतालक अभभियतता दतारता एकरतारनतामता कद भवभहत पतावधतान कद अधमीन अपत्यताभशत भबिलयबि कमी भस्थभत में उनकद पतनांक 191 भदननांक-1607-2015 एवय पतनांक-1043 भदननांक-06-11-2015 दतारता ई०पमी०आई०एल० करो कतारण बितताओ नरोभटिस दमी गई हप। पमुभलस भनगम कद पतनांक-एचिक्यू - 4844 (अनमु०) भदननांक-03-11-2015 दतारता एकरतारनतामता कद पतावधतान कद तहत कतार्यवताई हदतमु मदससर्य ई०पमी०आई०एल० करो भदननांक 15-11-2015 तक जबितावदनद कद भलयद कतारण बितताओ नरोभटिस भनगर्यत कमी गई हप।
(6) मदससर्य ई०पमी०आई०एल० दतारता पतनांक- EPI/ERsite/685/BPBCC/1002
9/11 भदननांक-19-11-2015 दतारता उतर भदयता गयता हप भजसकद अनमुसतार कतायर्य पयूरता करनद कद भलयद ई०पमी०आई०एल० दतारता 12 (बितारह) महमीनद कता समय कमी मनांग कमी गई हप। इस पकतार कतायर्य पतारयभि कमी भतभथ 15-02-2012 सद अभिमी तक लगभिग 03 वर्य 09 महमीनद कता समय गमुजर चिमुकता हप, जबिभक कतायर्य करो 14-08-2014 तक हहीं ( 21 वर्य में ) पयूरता कर दनता थता। पमुन इनकद दतारता 12 महमीनद कद समय कता मनांग भकयता जता रहता हप, जरो उनकद कतायर्य कद पभत लगताततार अरूभचि एवय उदतासमीनतता करो दशर्यातता हप। उपररोक्त तथ्ययों सद स्पष्ट हप भक कतायर्य करो पयूरता करनद में अपत्यताभशत भनलबि एवय अनतावश्यक पतताचितार दतारता भनगम कता बिहमुमयूल्य समय एवय सयसताधन नष्ट भकयता गयता । सम्यमुक भवचिताररोपरतान्त मदससर्य ई०पमी०आई०एल० करो भबिहतार पमुभलस एकदडममी, रताजगमीर कद कतायर्य पयूरता नहहीं करनद कद कतारण अगलमी भनभवदता में भिताग लदनद सद बिभचित (भडबितार) भकयता जतातता हप। ह0/- मुख्य अभभियन्तता जतापनांक- 5163 /पटिनता, भदननांक- 01/12/2015 पभतभलभप- मदससर्य ई०पमी०आई०एल०, करोर-3, स्करोप कम्पलदक्स, लरोधमी ररोड, नई भदल्लमी-110003, फपक्स-9111-24363426 करो सयूचिनताथर्य । ह0/- मुख्य अभभियन्तता"
8. In the light of discussions made here-in-above, it is apparent that the petitioner has attributed the delay in execution of work to the acts of the respondents like not providing designs on time and further not paying any heed to the request made by the petitioner in this regard. No doubt, the petitioner undertook to abide by the stipulated time limit and the respondent authorities issued two show cause notices dated 03.11.2015 and 06.11.2015 for debarring the petitioner from future work and terminating the contract. A detailed reply to the show cause notices was furnished by the petitioner wherein it submitted that the desired progress could not be achieved due to various
10/11 reasons not attributable to the petitioners and it enumerated the major reasons in detail in its reply to the show cause notices and sought time of 12 months for completing the project.
9. The reasoned order dated 01.12.2015 of the Chief Engineer does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner. Calling for show cause and not considering the same while passing the order makes such exercise only an empty formality. This goes against various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, i.e., in the cases of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551, Isolators and Isolators through its Proprietor Mrs. Sandhya Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and Anr, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330 and M/s Chauhan Builders Raibareli Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694.
10. In the light of these facts and circumstances and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case so as to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the Chief Engineer of the respondent-Corporation
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.12.2015,
11/11 passed by the Chief Engineer, of the respondent-Corporation is set aside.
12. This writ petition stands allowed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 11.05.2023 Uploading Date 19.05.2023 Transmission Date NA