PATNA, India, Oct. 3 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 3:

1. The present Writ petition is filed seeking a direction upon the respondent to release the petitioner's admitted dues towards the Security Deposit for the executed work, namely, construction of drinking water sanitary tank wells in the ARSENIC affected area at Mohiuddin Nagar Block for the year 2007-2008, vide Agreement No. F2/05, 2007-2008 which has not been released despite the petitioner's repeated request. The petitioner asserts that although the Executive Engineer has closed the aforesaid agreement, the security deposit remains unpaid thereby constraining him to approach this Court.

2. The brief facts as culled out from the Writ petition are that after due process of tender, the petitioner was awarded the aforesaid work, and accordingly entered into an Agreement vide its No. 26F2/05/2007-2008 dated 19.04.2007. Pursuant to the work order, the petitioner commenced execution of the work, in the presence of the site engineer deployed by the respondents, who recorded day-to-day measurements in the measurement Book. After due verification, the first running bill was prepared, and thereafter, payment was made with respect to seven wells. Subsequently, the petitioner reported noncompletion of the remaining works, on the ground that the site is a sanded area, where labourers were unwilling to continue the work.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner visited the office of the respondents and informed about the non-execution of work and further approached the Superintending Engineer, who assured him that the an alternative site would be provided. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Samastipur, vide Letter No. 4N/1/12-2006-2007/693 informed the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Darbhanga, stating that out of thirty-six wells, only seven wells had been completed, for which payment was released to the petitioner. He further requested to terminate the agreement, as the petitioner was unable to execute the remaining work, and also requested for release of the petitioner's security deposit. In spite of it, the security deposit was not released.

4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 4 denying all the allegations made in the Writ petition, except to the extent of admitting the work actually executed by the petitioner. The counter affidavit disclose that out of thirty-six wells, the petitioner completed construction of only seven wells, for which payment was made. The respondents submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to inspect the site, prior to issuance of the work order, and once the work order was issued, he has no right to demand a different site for construction of wells, on account of geographical conditions. As the petitioner failed to complete the work within the stipulated period and did not even seek for extension of time, there was a clear breach of contract. Consequently, the respondents, having no other option, forfeited the earnest money and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ petition.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjODM3MyMyMDE3IzEjTg==-waG--ak1--8zJl7GQ=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.