Modi Projects Limited Through One Of Its Directors Pradip Modi vs. Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company LTD Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Facts

The petitioner, Modi Projects Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an e-procurement notice issued by Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. (JUIDCO) for a work previously awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that a fresh tender was floated for the same work despite the final measurement of work done by the petitioner not being approved and payments not being made. The petitioner's prayer was limited to directing the respondents to conduct a final measurement of the work executed and issue a certificate as per Clause 60.2 of the tender conditions. The respondents argued that final measurement had already been taken in the petitioner's presence and that the petitioner's delay in submitting the final bill and non-submission of GST invoices and original purchase invoices for bitumen/emulsion had hindered payment processing. The petitioner countered that the measurement taken was partial and not signed by an authorized engineer, and that joint measurement for some additional works was still pending.

Held

The Court directed respondent no.3 to provide a copy of the measurement, annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition, which contains the signature of the site engineer/authorized representative of the respondents, to the petitioner within two weeks. Regarding the petitioner's claim that joint measurement for some additional works was still pending, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent no.3. Upon receipt of this representation, respondent no.3 was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner's representative and take an informed decision within two weeks of the representation's filing. Furthermore, the competent authority of JUIDCO was directed to issue a certificate in terms with Clause 60.2 of the tender document concerning the joint measurement done for the work in question. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the necessity of joint measurement for additional works, instead providing a procedural avenue for its resolution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are required to provide a copy of the measurement, as annexed in Annexure-11 to the writ petition, containing the signature of the site engineer/authorized representative of the respondents to the petitioner? (Question of fact and law, concerning contractual obligations and evidence of work completion). 2. Whether the respondents are required to take joint measurement of additional works executed by the petitioner? (Question of fact and law, concerning contractual obligations and scope of work). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents had failed to confirm the measurement of work executed, despite repeated requests. They relied on Clause 60.2 of the tender document, which mandates the engineer to issue a certificate for the value of work done, cost of balance work, and other related costs upon termination of the contract for employer's convenience or fundamental breach. The petitioner further contended that the measurement taken by the respondents was partial and unsigned, and that joint measurement for some more works was still pending. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner's own letter indicated that final measurement had already been taken in the presence of its representative, suggesting finality on the measurement issue. They also pointed to the petitioner's delay in submitting the final account bill and non-submission of necessary documents like GST invoices and original purchase invoices for bitumen/emulsion, which prevented the processing of payments. The respondents also noted that a proceeding had been initiated by the petitioner before the MSME Council, creating parallel proceedings.