Contractual obligations can invoke writ jurisdiction if government delays or failures cause undue harm, justifying payment escalations.

1. The background and short resume of the facts require to be put on record to appreciate the contentions raised in this petition.

2. Way back in the year 1979, in response to the notice of inviting tenders issued under No. EE / 500 - BH / IV - 34/102-37 dated 24-5-1979, the petitioner also tendered for construction of Radio Therapy, Mortuary, Workers facilities, Pump House and Guard Room for 500 Bed Hospital at Soura, Srinagar. The work seems to have been allotted in favour of the petitioner vide Chief Engineer, Project Organization, J. and K. Srinagar's order No. CEP / 113 of 1979 dated 25-10-1979 issued vide endorsement No. CEP / 3094-3102 dated 25-10-1979 at a contract of Rupees 32,05,787.15 and an agreement was accordingly drawn on 14-12-1979. Besides the conditions of contract, some additional conditions and stipulations seem to have been entered into by the parties, whereunder the Contractor / petitioner was to be given an advance of 10% of the contract value against bank guarantee for total amount @ 12% interest per annum and the amount plus interest was stipulated to be recovered from the running bills of the contractor on pro - rata basis.

3. The period of completion of work was stipulated ending March 1980. The petitioner could not complete the work by the end of the stipulated period of December 1980 because of the fact that drawings for the work were issued to him in piece - meals and works for which no drawings were issued to him up to the expiry of the date of completion and as such, work could not be completed because of the default of the Department, which caused heavy loss to the petitioner.

4. This is an admitted fact from the records that the delay has been caused in providing drawings and other facilities to the petitioner as per stipulations by the Government. The correspondence resting on the file does make mention of this fact. For example in one of the correspondence on the file produced by the parties, a letter purported to have been addressed to the Chief Engineer, Project Organization, J. and K. Cheshmashahi, Srinagar, wherein at para No. 4 it is stated as under: -
"In this connection it may be submitted here that the contract for construction of Radio Therapy was allotted to M/s. Ghulam Mohammad Dar Contractor and agreement was drawn up with the contractor. The construction could not be completed by the contractor within scheduled period of completion and the delay cannot be attributed to the contractor. The contractor stopped the work of construction of Hot Area with the reasons that he has to sustain the loss due to delay and fluctuation of market rates....... ......"

5. This fact is further substantiated by the recommendations made by the Executive Engineer of the Project to the Chief Engineer, when extension of time was solicited for completion of the work allotted. In that letter also, the Executive Engineer has in unambiguous terms admitted as under: -
"Since the work has delayed due to the reasons not attributable to the contractor, as such, it is recommended that extension in completion period may kindly be granted up to the end of November, 1983."

6. The recommendations seems to have been duly accepted by the Development Commissioner, Public Works Department (Projects), J. and K. under his No. DCP / 3952 dated 29-9-1984 by observing as under: -
"In view of the circumstances explained and as also recommended by you, extension in completion period upto end of November, 1983 is hereby granted in favour of the contractor."

7. It has also been projected by the petitioner before the authorities that the