The court emphasized that the reasons for delay and non-performance in a contract should be determined by a Civil Court, and it was not within the jurisdiction of the Writ Court to extend the time or accept the reasons for the delay.

ORDER :

The respondents floated a tender for the purposes of construction of a Lift Water Supply Scheme Behna Khad to Beli Dhar and Gowalpur-Teban Saran, Karsog, District Mandi (SH-Construction Work Pump House No.3, Sump Well 22,000 Ltrs., Cap-2 Nos. MST 90,000 Ltrs., Cap Phase-III). Various persons bid for the same. The petitioner was awarded the contract in terms of a letter dated 27.03.2020. The same had to be completed within a period of six months. Thereafter, the COVID set in. Various documentations have been produced in order to indicate that the time granted in the original contract was extended time and again. Thereafter, in terms of a communication addressed by the petitioner to the respondents, vide Annexure P-7, dated 01.03.2021, it was indicated that the petitioner had started the work on 24.02.2021. However, in spite of the work having commenced, the respondents have issued a letter dated 21.05.2021, vide Annexure P-11, cancelling/rescinding the contract awarded to the petitioner. After the cancellation of the tender, the respondents have floated a new tender for the said process, in terms of Annexure P-16, dated 14.06.2021. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the onset of COVID prevented the petitioner from completing the contract work within the stipulated time. That even in terms of the extended time granted, the respondents did not hand-over the land to the petitioner. That when the petitioner took the JCB Machines to do work on the land, he was interrupted by the forest authorities. Therefore, it is the act of the respondents that has caused the delay. Therefore, he submits that when a contract has been awarded to the petitioner, he should be permitted to complete the same. That another six months may be granted to the petitioner for the purpose of completion of the work.

3. The same is disputed by the respondents through their statement of reply as well as an application, bearing CMP No.11526 of 2021, seeking to vacate the interim order dated 13.07.2021, granted by this Court.

4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in this petition. The initial award of the tender to the petitioner, stipulated a time, within which, the contract had to be executed. The petitioner has failed to do so. Notwithstanding the same, the time was extended mutually. Ultimately, in terms of the communication dated 01.03.2021, vide Annexure P-7, the petitioner has stated to have commenced the contract work w.e.f. 24.02.2021. Even, if the said period is to be reckoned from that date, there has been no satisfactory progress in the work at all.

5. Keeping in view the fact that no work has been done by the petitioner, the State have thought it appropriate to go for a fresh contract, in view of the fact that the same is in a public interest.

6. On considering the material on record, we are of the view that the reasons assigned by the petitioner, cannot be accepted. The non-grant of the land and the disturbance by the respondents, may constitute grounds for violating the terms and conditions of the contract. Therefore, the Civil Court would have to determine the same. Even if we accept the case of the petitioner that the contract should commence from February, 2021, even then, the contract is not fulfilled. The petitioner has failed to perform his part of the contract even after the extended period. The various other contentions, urged by the petitioner subsequent to February, 2021, can only be agitated by him in an appropriate Civil Court.

7. We are of the view that it is not for the Writ Court to either extend the time or to accept the reasons for the delay by the petitioner in performing his part of the contract. It is a matter of contract wherein evidence is required to be led-in. It is suffice to hold that in view of the petitioner’s not performing his part of the contract, the State was justified in calling for a fresh tender for the very