The court ruled that failing to comply with contract terms related to approval processes justified the cancellation of the work order.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in construction work as well as general work order supply.

3. The petitioner had participated in response to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 28.05.2016 floated by the respondent No. 3, i.e., Executive Engineer, bearing No. 15 / SAC for construction of RCC elevated service reservoir 100 K.L. capacity 12 meter staging (including providing and fixing of all pipes, specials and fitting etc.) at Livelihood College and ITI Rampur, Korba for an estimated cost of Rs. 11.97 lacs. The period of completion of the work was stipulated to be six months including rainy season.

4. The petitioner having emerged as the successful tenderer, a work order dated 20.10.2016 was issued to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 14.468 lacs. It is pleaded that while 90% of the work of water tank had been completed, on 01.04.2017, the petitioner came to learn that an NIT dated 25.03.2017 for the very same work, for which the work order was issued to the petitioner, was floated and on enquiry, the petitioner further came to learn that the respondent No.3, i.e. Executive Engineer, Department of Public Health and Engineering, is going to forfeit the term deposit amount deposited by it. It is also pleaded that the authorities had earlier assured that bill submitted by the petitioner would be finalized after execution of the complete work and, in the process, not a single penny was paid to the petitioner.

5. On the above factual background, the writ petition was filed for quashing the NIT dated 25.03.2017.

6. The writ petition came to be filed on 03.04.2017 and this Court passed an order on 11.04.2017 providing that if the work awarded to the petitioner has not been terminated, he will be permitted to continue with the work for the time being. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an amendment application on 02.10.2017, which was allowed by an order dated 03.12.2019. By the said amendment, the petitioner pleaded that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner had completed the work within the prescribed period of time. However, final measurement of the constructed water tank had not been done. An additional prayer was made praying for a direction to the respondents to take final measurement of the constructed water tank and to pay final bill amount to the petitioner.

7. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a return on 04.10.2017, wherein preliminary objections were also raised. It is pleaded that a letter dated 20.09.2016 was issued to the petitioner informing him that his bid was accepted and that he should report to the Office within seven days of receiving the letter for signing the agreement. However, the petitioner did not turn up. A letter dated 01.10.2016 was thereafter issued stating that as the petitioner did not appear, as directed, the bid of the petitioner was cancelled and the earnest money was forfeited. However, in view of an apology letter being received from the petitioner on 07.10.2016, by a letter dated 14.10.2016, a further period of seven days was granted to the petitioner for signing the agreement. The agreement having been signed on 20.10.2016, the work order was issued to the petitioner on 20.10.2016 itself. It is stated that though directed by letter dated 20.10.2016, the petitioner had not submitted the Soil Bearing Capacity (SBC) test report. Letters dated 30.11.2016 and 09.12.2016 were issued in that context and it is stated that by the letter dated 09.12.2016, the petitioner was directed to submit the SBC test report and thereafter, to obtain approval of the design and drawing