IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petitions in contractual matters are maintainable if state action is arbitrary, and contractual provisions must be strictly followed regarding deductions and dispute resolution.

ORDER :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) :

GVPR Engineers Limited is aggrieved by the order dated 29th July 2024 by which S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12533/2024 has been dismissed observing as under:-

“5. Further, admittedly, the deductions sought to be made by the respondent-Department are being made in terms of Clause 2 of the agreement in question. Firstly, as is the settled position of law, no writ is maintainable in contractual matters. Secondly, so far as Clause 2 of the agreement is concerned, it provides for deduction of amount from running bills if the pro-rata progress, as required, is not maintained. The dispute as to whether the pro rata progress was maintained and as to whether the amount of deduction as sought to be made, could be made, are totally disputed questions of fact. Thirdly, the fact as to whom the delay in completion of the work was attributable, is also a totally disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in writ jurisdiction. The remedy of the petitioner lies somewhere else.”

2. The appellant-firm has pleaded that pursuant to NIB dated 2nd February 2022 for supply of drinking water to 306 villages in the District of Jalore under the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM), it was declared L1 bidder. On 3rd June 2022, the subject works under the NIB were awarded to the appellant-firm for a total cost of Rs.8,33,48,61,509/- the operation and maintenance of which was to continue for ten years; the scheduled completion period was 21 months. The appellant-firm raised various grievances particularly relating to handing over of Elevated Storage Reservoir (ESR) & Clear Water Reservoir (CWR) and also requested the respondent-authority to demarcate OHSR and CWR-cum-PH (Pump House) locations. According to the appellant-firm, the reason for slow progress of the project was attributable to inaction on the part of the respondent-authority. However, a letter dated 23rd September 2022 was served upon it as regards slow progress of the project which was duly replied by it on 10th October 2022. In this appeal, we are not required to refer to the rival stand taken by the parties and it would suffice to observe that in the letter dated 2nd February 2024 seeking extension of time up to 12th March 2025, the appellant-firm raised issues relating to (a) land (b) major scope of work (c) changes in the survey requirements in the Project (d) delay in release of pending payments (e) effect of Biparjoy Cyclone and (f) non-release of 6% GST, etc.

3. The appellant-firm has raised a grievance that in the garb of the order issued by the Chief Engineer (Project), Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Jodhpur digitally signed on 9th February 2024 provisional time extension for completion of the subject work under the NIB was approved; whereby an extension till 31st December 2024 was given to the appellant-firm. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel for the appellant-firm submits that the order dated 29th July 2024 does not record any reason and on the contrary it says that the department shall have right to recover compensation for delay, as admissible. The learned senior counsel would refer to clause 2 of the bid document captioned as ‘Compensation for delay’ vide annexure-13 at page 119 of the writ Court’s record to submit that it is only if the contractor fails to complete the work in accordance with the time schedule and the delay in execution of work is attributable to the contractor, the contractor shall be liable to pay compensation to the Government as provided in the table appended below clause 2. The learned senior counsel has also referred to Note appended to clause 2 to submit that dismissal of the writ petition has in fact foreclosed all options to the appellant-firm.

4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant-firm has relied on the decisions in “Unitech Ltd. & Ors. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation & Ors.” reported in (2021) 6 SCC 35, “M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. Jabalpur v.