The main legal point established is that the obligations and dispute resolution mechanisms provided in the bidding document govern the responsibilities and disputes arising from the construction and maintenance contract.

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.

1. Petitioner was awarded work for construction of road from Anandipur to Pirpaiti via Bateshwar Asthan under Pardhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna in the district of Bhagalpur. This work was numbered as Package No. BR/06/09. The agency which awarded contract to the Petitioner is National Building Construction Corporation Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking. The tender awarded to the Petitioner was a composite one meaning thereby that the Petitioner had the responsibility of upgradation of the road as well as its maintenance for 5 years. Since the Petitioner was the successful bidder, work came to be awarded to him and an agreement between the parties was entered on 15th March, 2005. Agreement is Annexure-3 to the Writ Application.

2. It is the stand of the Petitioner that he was granted a satisfactory completion certificate on completion of the work by the concerned Project Manager on 31st March, 2006. It is also the contention of the Petitioner that besides the completion certificate issued by the Project Manager a site inspection was also carried out by Quality Manager of National Rural Roads Development Agency. The execution of the work in terms of the contract was certified to be O.K. The said certification report is Annexure-5 to the Writ Application.

3. Petitioner states that in terms of the contract he even undertook maintenance of the concerned road in the first year. But he found certain hurdle and problems because of plying of heavy vehicles on the road constructed by the Petitioner where wear and tear or damage to certain portions of the road became disproportionate to the fund allotted for the said maintenance. He brought the said fact to the notice of the Respondent Authority and stopped maintenance work after June, 2007.

4. On 23rd May, 2008 the Project Manager wrote a letter to the Petitioner enclosing an inspection report dated 25th January, 2008 stating therein that the road in question requires rectification as well as proper maintenance. Petitioner was directed to ensure that both these aspects are taken care of and the work was completed as per standard laid down in the contract. Failure on the part of the Petitioner would compel the Respondents to get the work done through another agency at the risk and cost of the Petitioner. The letter in question is Annexure-7 to the Writ Application.

5. Petitioner responded to the above communication by placing his point of view that the road in question was not meant to take heavy load. One of the reasons for excessive damage was diversion of certain traffic from National Highway through this stretch. He stated that the present specification was not meant to take such heavy traffic and that was the reason why there was more damage to the road than normal wear and tear.

6. The plea and explanation offered by the Petitioner did not satisfy the Respondents and they finally decided to award the rectification of defective work of road Package No. BR/06/09 to yet another contractor, namely Respondent No. 8. Petitioner was communicated the decision as per Annexure-12 which is dated 26th February, 2009. It is this letter which is under challenge in the present Writ Application.

7. Submission of learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner is that the decision of the Respondents to award rectification of defective work of the road in question to yet another contractor as well as its maintenance for next 5 years was unwarranted, arbitrary as well as unnecessary because the facts being what they are it did not require a decision of the kind which has adversely effected the interest of the Petitioner.

8. There was evidence to show that the work had been completed satisfactorily and the concerned Project Manager had certified the completion of the work in terms of PMGSY guidelines. Since 2 years after certification if major wear and tear has been caused to the road, the Petitioner cannot be held responsible. There was evidence to show that hea