Point of Law: Termination of Contract - Execution/completion of project - Learned Single Judge has rightly come to conclusion that there is no arbitrariness on part of respondents in terminating contract as they have terminated the contract on basis of certain grounds.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J

1. This intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 14.01.2020 (hereinafter to the referred as the judgment impugned) passed by the learned Single Judge by virtue of which, two writ petitions bearing Nos. OWP No. 168 of 2019 and OWP No. 485 of 2019 were dismissed.

2. The judgment impugned has been challenged on the following grounds:

(i) that the learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that the impugned communication dated 18.03.2019 terminating the contract awarded to the appellant was in breach of the principles of natural justice and it was incumbent upon the respondents to furnish a reply to all pending points of the contract raised by the appellant by virtue of representation dated 05.03.2019.

(ii) that the learned Single Judge should have considered the fact that the respondents could not have issued the impugned order of cancellation, particularly when they had agreed with the appellant that the deadline for completion of the work would be 31.12.2019. The work had been substantially completed by the appellant and the work remained uncompleted due to the non-payment of dues of the appellant by the respondents and also delay in the execution/completion of project was occasioned because of frequent deviations made by the respondents in the original plan.

(iii) that the learned Single Judge ought to have held that the termination letter was bad in law due to legal mala fides and the writ petition was maintainable as the State is under a constitutional obligation to act fairly and that the State cannot practice discrimination or arbitrariness.

(iv) that the impugned judgment prejudges the contractual claims and observes on merits instead of limiting the jurisdiction within the bounds of Article 14 of the Constitution thereby violating the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the appellant was awarded a contract for the construction of a 650 bed hospital along with OTM ACCN In. Lift, Central AC Plant, Hot Water Supply, Fire Hydrant, Sprinkler System, Fire Alarm System and External Service for a Command Hospital, Northern Command, at Udhampur in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Contract Agreement No. CEUZ/UDH/09/2010-11 dated 27.01.2011 was executed. Time period for the execution of the work was 27 months commencing from 10.02.2011. It is the case of the appellant that after the site was handed over to the appellant on 10.02.2011, the appellant started the construction work of the hospital and during the course of execution of the work, due to number of changes in the scope of work as well as in the goods to be consumed by the appellant, the pace of the execution of the work was severely effected. The appellant mentioned the following deviations sought for by the respondents, in his writ petition:

a. In original contract allotted there was provision for lift with gears but later on in place of lift with gears, gearless lifts were demanded by the respondents.

b. The respondents demanded change in the size of the lifts from 20 passengers to 26 passengers.

c. Change was made from glass wool insulation for chilled water as provided in original contract to the expanded Polystyrene insulation

d. Change in G F Plan due to relocation of various areas with in the Hospital building (35% of the G.F area and 10% of Hospital area).

e. Abnormal variation in quantities ranging up to more than 1000% for Air conditioning, Fire Fighting, Medical Gases etc.

f. Change in the specifications in the basement crumples, three times.

4. It is also stated in the petition that the appellant time and again requested the respondents that they should allow the appellant to adhere to the original contract and should refrain from making unnecessary changes in the executed agreement and allow the appellant to co