ORDER :

These writ petitions were filed by the petitioner Private Limited Company represented by its Managing Director. Since the reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions are interlinked, they are dealt with jointly and disposed of by a common order.

WRIT PETITION No.42236 of 2017

2. This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4th respondent in terminating the contract under Clause 62.3 of GCC and not following the procedure contemplated under Clause 63 of GCC as illegal, arbitrary and against the terms of agreement and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner’s amount due under contract bearing CR.No.91/2013-04 dated 14.02.2014.

3. (a) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was contended inter-alia that the Government of Andhra Pradesh called for tenders on 10.12.2013 through e-procurement for construction of multi-storied building after demolishing the sub-court building at Vijayawada; that bid was submitted on behalf of petitioner on 31.01.2014 and the petitioner’s company stood as lowest; that estimated value is Rs.43,26,72,948/- and petitioner quoted the bid amount at Rs.39,31,26,640.55/-, 9.14% less than estimated value; that 3rd respondent-Superintendent Engineer, R&B sent communication to the petitioner to sign the agreement, accordingly, agreement bearing No.CR.No.91/2013-14 was signed by 3rd respondent and authorized representative of petitioner; that site was handed over to petitioner on 14.02.2014, however designs and drawings were not made ready.

(b) Stipulated time for completion of contract is 36 months from the date of agreement; that entire site was not handed over; that designs and drawings were not supplied till 20.06.2015; that 3rd respondent concluded supplemental agreement after supply of designs and drawings and hence, the petitioner could not show work progress in initial period, in fact letters were addressed to 3rd respondent on 23.05.2015, 29.08.2016, 30.11.2016, 18.01.2017, 07.02.2017 and 27.02.2017 explaining the reasons for slow progress of work.

(c) On 10.02.2016 letter was addressed to 3rd respondent to arrange funds for making payment; that another letter dated 01.02.2017 was addressed stating that site is located adjacent to the Hon’ble Chief Minister’s Officer and hence, the police did not allow to ply vehicles; that police also did not allow to do contract work during day time in view of Pushkarams; that structural designs and drawings were handed over on 20.06.2017 and there is variation of work by more than 200%.

(d) Stipulated time for completion of contract was expired by 14.02.2017; that in letter dated 28.02.2017, a request was made to extend the time upto 31.08.2018 without liquidated damages and also submitted a revised programme; that 2nd respondent by letter dated 16.03.2017 extended the currency of contract upto 30.06.2018 by imposing liquidated damage of Rs.11 lakhs; that as per Clause 54 of GCC, the department has to impose liquidated damages only, when there is no possibility of extending currency of contract.

(e) 4th Respondent sent letter No.Court Complex @ VJA /A3/2013 dated 26.07.2017 terminating the contract as per Clause 62.3 of GCC and requested to take immediate action as per Clause 62.4 of GCC; that though the order is dated 26.07.2017, it was communicated to petitioner on 30.07.2017; that even after expiry of four months, neither 3rd respondent nor 4th respondent issued any certificate for the value of work done by petitioner as per Clause 63.1 of GCC.

(f) 3rd Respondent issued paper publication inviting tenders from the eligible contractors for the left over work, since the contract was terminated, petitioner is entitled to get the amount due to him from the department as per Clause 63.1; that nearly 4.5 crores was held up with the department, apart from bank guarantees and deposits submitted by t