The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has upheld the order issued by the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) on June 1, 2021, terminating the contract awarded to Gayatri Projects Ltd (GPL) for the work, 4-lanning of the existing Dimapur-Kohima road from design chainage Km 152.490 to 166.700 (existing Km 156.00 to 172.900) excluding Dimapur-Kohima Bypass, under SARDP-NE through Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC contract) for a contract price of Rs 340 crores.
Gayatri Projects Ltd. was awarded the contract by NHIDCL and an agreement was signed on April 22, 2016. As per the agreement, the contract amount was Rs 340 crores and the work was to be completed on the 1095th day from the appointed date, but had failed to complete the same.
Hearing a Writ Petition (C) filed by Gayatri Projects Ltd praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing NHIDCL to go for foreclosure of the agreement dated 22.04.2016 executed by both GPL and NHIDCL for the work, Justice Songkhupchung Serto and Justice S Hukato Swu in a judgment and order passed today dismissed the writ petition saying “we find no merit in the writ petition”.
Earlier appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel CT Jamir submitted that as per paragraph 4 of the OM No.NH-24028/19/2018-H(Pt.), dated 9/3/2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, all projects undertaken or executed by the Ministry and other agencies like NHIDCL through various modes including EPC mode, should be foreclosed if the project is stuck and cannot be completed.
Jamir submitted that the order of termination of the contract agreement is violative of the O.M, dated 9/3/2019, issued by the Government of India and it is also not in public interest as it would delay completion of the project. He also submitted that 72% of the project has been completed and, if the petitioner is allowed to continue, the whole project would be completed within a period of 2 to 3 months.
The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court had earlier admitted a PIL Suo moto on October 18, 2019 seeing the inconveniences suffered by the people of the ‘State of Nagaland’ and people who commute through that road following the failure of GPL to complete the work on the scheduled date.
Dismissing the writ petition, the 2-Judge Bench observed that “the extreme action of contract termination was taken only after the writ petitioner failed to keep the terms and conditions given therein and the promises made before this Court through affidavits and oral submissions.”
Further, the Court said “it is clear from the record that the termination order was issued after the writ petitioner, on his own, admitted that it was not possible for him to complete the project and after the foreclosure proceedings failed to materialise or could not be signed due to differences between the parties on certain clauses in the draft agreement.”
“Lastly, it can also be seen from the order dated 24/3/2021, passed in the PIL Suo Moto No. 2/2019 that, such action was taken only after this Court had given the liberty to NHIDCL to terminate the contract agreement considering the writ petitioner’s (respondent No.9) inability to complete the project in spite of the promises made, and only after he was asked to file affidavit explaining as to why a contempt proceeding should not be taken up for not keeping the promises made before this Court.”
Taking all these into consideration we are of the view that there is no room for any interference in the actions taken by the respondents (NHIDCL) which has resulted in the termination of contract”, the judgment & order said.
The judgment noted that having seen the performance of the petitioner (GPL) closely for the past 2 years, “we are not impressed with the submission of the learned Counsel of the petitioner that, given the chance and time the petitioner would be able to complete the project. The facts and circumstances narrated herein above bear testimony to this. As such, to allow the prayer of the petitioner would amount to ignoring the realities and the public interest which is paramount”, the Court said while dismissing the writ petition.
(Nagaland Page)