JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

These are the two writ petitions, which have been preferred by the petitioner/ contractor.

2. In WPMS No.2175 of 2020, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition, where he has questioned the tender notice, which was published on 17th November 2020, which was, issued by the respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Engineer, Bareilly Road, Military Engineering Services, on various factual counts, which has been pleaded by the petitioner in the Writ Petitions.

3. Partially the facts of both these Writ Petitions as mentioned above would be common. So far it relates to the status of the petitioner, which the petitioner legally enjoys as a proprietorship firm, claiming to be engaged in the construction work with the Military Engineering Services. It is an admitted case where the work contract was granted to the petitioner by the respondents by an order dated 2nd March 2017, for the completion of the work providing of security wall to the RIMC, Dehradun. As per the tender notice, and the invitation of the contract, the total value of the contract was assessed to be Rs.95,35,599.89/-. According to the covenants of the contract, and the work order issued on 2nd March 2017, the commencement of the work, was to be started with effect from 14th March 2017 and the work was to be completed by 8th December 2017.

4. At this stage, this Court is slightly constraint to make any observations with regards to the stipulations and effect of the terms of the contract whether the time would play any effect, as an essence to the contract or not, because for the reason known to the petitioner, the concluded contract has not been placed on record, with the writ petition.

5. In that eventuality, this Court will be constrained to consider and record its findings based on the facts, which are pleaded and reflected from the documents, as already placed on record. Admittedly as per the terms and conditions of the contract, and the general condition of the contract was executed in favour of the petitioner, which was by way of IAFW 2249, governing the project, for which the petitioner was given work order on 2nd March 2017.

6. The petitioner has factually contended that, since the site in question was not handed over by the respondents to the petitioner within time, in order to enable him to commence the work, and complete the same as per the stipulations of the work order of 2nd March 2017, despite of the repeated requests, and on account of non supplying of the drawing of the construction, to be done, which the petitioner has prayed for to be provided by making the request to the Garrison Engineer (Project), Military Engineering Service, Dehradun. A sketch was provided to the petitioner showing the location of the security wall, which was made available to the petitioner, the petitioner contends that it was only when the sketch was provided to them by the Garrison Engineer, vide its correspondence of 24th February 2018, the petitioner was made aware about the nature of the work, which the petitioner was supposed to complete as per the work order of 2nd March 2017.

7. The petitioner submits, that as per the work order of 2nd March 2017, the petitioner contends that he continued with the construction work under the contract, despite of the various adverse situations, which had arisen due to various inter se events, which has been narrated in the writ petitions, the work could not be progressed as per the terms of the work order dated 2nd March 2017.

8. There are other various grounds, which has been taken by the petitioner, that due to the adverse weather conditions; due to “Rashtriya Bhartiya Sainya College Rashtiya Indian Military College”, where ongoing work services of the security wall was installed on account of the said activity of Indian Military Mela. The revised location plan is said to have been later on submitted with the petitioner with the highlighted part of the work which was supposed to be performed by the petitioner.

9. The re