HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.:–I.A. No. 9234 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the present civil revision. The aforesaid interlocutory application stands allowed on the grounds mentioned in the interlocutory application and accordingly, delay is, hereby, condoned.

2. This civil revision petition has been preferred against the award dated 24.09.2013 passed by Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No. 42 of 2011 by which and whereunder the learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of compensation as well as damages but directed the opposite parties to return the security deposit of Rs. 11,36,300/- with simple interest at the rate of Rs. 10 % per annum. However, subsequently, vide award dated 29.10.2013 the learned Tribunal reviewed the award dated 24.09.2013 and refused to refund of security deposit.

3. The brief fact, which lies to file this revision petition, is that a Notice of National Competitive Bidding Invitation (in short “NIT”) bearing Reference No. 37 dated 18.01.2008 issued by Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Water Ways Division, Ghoshi, Jehanabad was published in several newspapers inviting tender for construction of certain works as mentioned in the said notice. In response to the aforesaid notice, petitioner applied for allotment of the works as mentioned in the notice and finally the construction work was allotted to the petitioner and subsequently, petitioner and opposite party no. 4 entered into an agreement on 24.03.2009 vide agreement no. 06 S.B.D. of 2008-09. The work was to be completed within twelve months from the date of execution of the agreement and the valuation of work was of Rs. 5,67,48,755/- only. The NIT vide reference no. 37 dated 18.01.2008 was also made part of the agreement and Clause 6 of the NIT contains information that site for the work was available. Furthermore, para-18 of the NIT contains a provision that Notice inviting Tender shall form a part of the contract document. The claim of the petitioner is that he mobilized his men and machinery for execution of the work at site but came to know that work site was not available. However, the opposite parties had given assurance to him that the work site shall be provided to him as soon of earliest and having reposed faith upon them he waited for a long period but the work site was not made available to him in spite of his repeated request as the opposite parties failed to acquire the lands which had been selected for the work and in the meantime, the time fixed for completion of the work lapsed. The opposite parties also failed to rescind the contract and due to negligence and inaction of the opposite parties, the petitioner suffered huge loss. He submitted his grievance to the Chief Engineer, Water Ways Division, Gaya for settlement of his claim vide letter no. 46 dated 29.06.2010 but nothing was done. He also sent legal notice through his advocate but no action was taken and lastly, he filed the above stated Reference Case No. 42 of 2011 before the learned Tribunal basing his claim between the period from 24.03.2009 to 24.05.2010.

4. The opposite parties appeared before the Tribunal and denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground of Clause 6.3.7, Clause 7.1 of the tender document part-1 and Clause 10 of the agreement and also on Clause 3A of the contract. The opposite parties also pleaded that the petitioner was aware of this fact that work site was not available as the land in question could not be acquired but he did not choose to rescind the contract and moreover, he laid false claim before the Tribunal on the basis of forged and imaginary documents and calculation.

5. The learned Tribunal having considered the submissions of the parties rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that Clause 7(1) of the agreement contain specific provision that the contractor shall collect specific information rega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document