Failure to comply with the terms of a construction agreement can justify termination and forfeiture of deposits, and courts should exercise restraint in interfering with administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the respondents. However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

2. In the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order contained in letter no.1225 dated 04.02.2016 issued by the Chief Engineer, Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Patna by which Contract Agreement No.43 SBD of 2011-12 dated 14.03.2013 has been rescinded and the earnest money deposit, security deposit and performance guarantee of the petitioner have been forfeited.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents was executed on 14.03.2012 in respect of Group No.USS-06 for construction of Middle School, Tar, Upgraded Middle School, Devchanda and Middle School, Khutaha in the District of Bhojpur and as per the said agreement, the construction was to be completed within 12 months from the date of agreement. The construction work of Middle School, Tar and Upgraded Middle School, Devachanda was started on 25.02.2013 and 18.08.2012, respectively. However, construction work of Middle School, Khutaha was not started due to non-availability of land. When the construction work was not completed on time, the respondent authorities on several times directed the petitioner to complete the work. Lastly, vide letter dated 04.02.2016, the Chief Engineer rescinded the aforesaid contract and forfeited the earnest money deposit, security deposit and performance guarantee. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed the present Writ.

4. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the reason which has been assigned to rescind the work i.e. to cause delay in completion of work is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the work place was not made available to the petitioner in time, therefore, the delay could not have been attributed to the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner was not given extension of time to complete the work even through he had filed an application for the same. Lastly, the petitioner was ready to complete the work if the grievance of the petitioner is reasonably considered.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of the agreement, the petitioner was required to complete the said contractual work within twelve months, but after lapse of about three years and ten months, the petitioner did not complete the said contractual work in spite of several directions/instructions contained in Memo No.437 dated 16.01.2015, Memo No.1054 dated 26.12.2014, Memo No.65 dated 27.01.2015, Memo No.1360 dated 19.02.2015, Memo No.147 dated 09.03.2015, Memo No.7881 dated 01.09.2015, Memo No.9109 dated 07.10.2015, Memo No.663 dated 30.11.2015, Memo No.693 dated 21.12.2015 and Memo No.06 dated 06.01.2016. It has further been submitted that as even after lapse of more than three years, the petitioner did not complete the work assigned to him, therefore, the respondent-department took the decision to terminate the agreement. The termination of agreement was communicated vide Letter No. 1225 dated 04.02.2016 and vide letter no.84 dated 17.02.2016, the Executive Engineer communicated the date for final measurement to the petitioner and the petitioner was stated to remain present on the date fixed for measurement. The learned counsel also submitted that 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 14.03.2013, the petitioner was required to complete the contractual works within twelve months, but after lapse of about three years and ten months, he did not complete the said contractual work in spite of several directions/instructions as stated above. Thereafter, the respondent-department took the decision to terminate the agreement vide Letter No. 1225 da