IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
Shivalaya Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Road Construction Department and ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No.2481 of 2020
Decided On : 07-01-2021
Constitution Of India,1950 - Quash - Contract document - Petition has been filed for quashing order contained in letter Annexure writ petition issued by Member Technical State Highways Authority of Jharkhand respondent whereby request made by petitioner for exchange of performance bank guarantee Bank Ltd being amount having validity up with performance equivalent amount having validity up issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce has been rejected - Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon State Highways Authority of Jharkhand-respondent to permit petitioner to exchange its performance with an equivalent amount - Issued from any Branches of State Bank of India or Nationalized or Scheduled Commercial Bank having its branches situated within State of Jharkhand for an extended validity period up terms of Clause terms and conditions of contract – Held, It transpires from record that at time of award of said tender petitioner had submitted its performance issued by ICICI Bank Ltd - in conformity with Clause of ITB - However in course of execution of work Bank Ltd withdrew itself as Consortium Banker of petitioner and as such petitioner requested respondent authorities to allow it to exchange earlier performance issued by ICICI Bank Ltd - With new performance equivalent amount of Nationalized Bank - Oriental Bank Commerce containing exactly same terms and conditions which are provided in contract document - Clause provides for submission of performance - Issued by branches of State Bank of India Nationalized Scheduled Commercial Bank situated within State of Jharkhand should be in form as given in Section - It is not case of respondents that - Which petitioner wants to submit does not fulfill criteria mentioned in Clause – Moreover court find substance in argument of learned counsel for petitioner that after extension period of execution work replacement too with extended liability period will also be in interest of respondent authorities - Purpose of submitting is to secure performance contractor and since due to compelling circumstance petitioner wants to replace previous performance with new one strictly complying requirement of Clause respondent authorities should have allowed such replacement more so when same is also in their interest - Respondents have failed to show any provision in ITB which specifically prohibits replacement of performance - Contractor and in such situation respondents were supposed to protect their own interest by allowing petitioner to replace - Cover extended defect liability period – Petition allowed
ORDER :
1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in letter no.1474 dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) issued by the Member (Technical) State Highways Authority of Jharkhand-respondent No.3, whereby the request made by the petitioner for exchange of performance bank guarantee (B.G.) of ICICI Bank Ltd., being B.G. No.0007BGR0033217 dated 12.05.2016, for an amount of Rs.1,51,95,400/-, having validity up to 11.05.2021 with performance B.G. dated 22.05.2018 of equivalent amount having validity up to 21.11.2021 being B.G. No.07410002918 issued by the Oriental Bank of Commerce has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the State Highways Authority of Jharkhand-respondent no.2 to permit the petitioner to exchange its performance B.G. with an equivalent amount of B.G. issued from any of the Branches of State Bank of India or Nationalized or Scheduled Commercial Bank, having its branches situated within the State of Jharkhand for an extended validity period up to 28th April, 2022 in terms of Clause 34 of the terms and conditions of the contract.
3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no.2 published a Notice Inviting Tender (in short ‘NIT') dated 01.01.2016 pertaining to the work of “Widening, Strengthening/Reconstruction of Maricha (on K.T.K. Road SH-3)-Rania- Soude (up to SH-4) Road (total length-36.19 Km.) including Construction of Bridges & Culverts” (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the said Tender’). The petitioner participated in the said tender and was declared successful. Accordingly, Letter of Acceptance (LoA) dated 22.04.2016 was issued in favour of the petitioner. In view of Clause 34 of the Instructions to Bidders (I.T.B.), the petitioner deposited performance B.G. amounting to Rs.1,51,95,400/- vide B.G. No.0007BGR0033217 dated 12.05.2016 issued by the ICICI Bank Ltd., which was valid up to 11.05.2021. Thereafter, an agreement was executed on 04.07.2016 between the petitioner and the State Highways Authority of Jharkhand through its Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary- respondent no.2 and, accordingly, the petitioner commenced the work in question. As per the agreement, the date of commencement of the work was 07.10.2016 and stipulated time for completion of the work was 16.10.2018, however, the same was completed on 31.03.2019. The respondent no.2 vide its letter no.890 dated 8th July, 2019 granted post facto approval and extended the period of completion of the work up to 31st March, 2019. The performance B.G. submitted by the petitioner was covering the entire defect liability period of 1095 days from the date of completion of the work. Since the date of completion of the work was extended till 31st March, 2019, the performance B.G. was also required to be revised and a fresh performance B.G. was required to be submitted for the defect liability period of 1095 days + 28 days i.e. up to 28th April, 2022. During subsistence of the present contract, ICICI Bank Ltd. withdrew itself as a Consortium Banker of the petitioner and the petitioner's operation with ICICI Bank was closed down upon mutual discussions and as such the petitioner filed an application on 24.05.2018 before respondent no.2, seeking permission for replacement of the performance B.G. issued by the ICICI Bank Ltd. with a fresh performance B.G. issued by a Nationalized Bank i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce of equivalent amount and containing exactly same terms and conditions which were provided in the contract document as well as in the earlier performance B.G., however, no action was taken by the respondent no.2, which compelled the petitioner to file repeated representations before the said authority, including the representations dated 2nd July, 2018 and 29th May, 2019. The said representations were also not considered by respondent no.2 and as such the petitioner filed a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.