Manipur High Court
Sudhakar Infratech vs Ningthoujam Geoffery & Anr on 20 December, 2024
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
13-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cont Cas (C) No.106 of 2024 with
MC (WP(C)) No.473 of 2024 with
MC (WP(C)) No.482 of 2023 with
WP(C) No.930 of 2023
Sudhakar Infratech ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Ningthoujam Geoffery & Anr ... Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
20.12.2024
Heard Mr.Ch.Ngongo, learned senior counsel assisted
by Ms.Gangarani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Nepolean,
learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr.Shyam Sharma,
learned Government Advocate for the state respondents and
Mr.A.Golly, learned counsel assisted by Mr.S.M.Farid, learned
counsel for the Chief Engineer, PHED.
In pursuance of the order dated 3.12.2024 and
29.11.2024 passed by this Court, calling for report from the Expert
Committee, consisting one expert from the IFCD, one from PHED
and one from petitioner, a report has been submitted by the
Committee observing that it cannot be possible to complete the
remaining work within a period of six months. It may take twelve
months and two more months for testing and commissioning. The
report is taken on record.
After briefly hearing the parties, this Court framed the
following points for determination in the present case:
(1) Whether the employer has general power of
termination of contract prior to expiry of the stipulated
period?
(2) Whether the employer can terminate the
contract for poor performance and delay in execution
of the work?
(3) Whether there was delay and poor performance
in the execution of the contract by the petitioner?
(4) Whether the employer has complied the
Commission’s stipulation under clause (2.7.1.a) of the
General Clause of contract while terminating the
contract granted to the petitioner?
(5) Whether Administrative Department can direct
the Chief Engineer, PHED to terminate the contract or;
in other words, whether the Chief Engineer, PHED has
to apply its own mind while terminating the contract.
(6) Whether the termination order issued by the
Chief Engineer, PHED is arbitrary and without any
basis?
Mr.Ch.Ngongo, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner also impresses upon the Court to frame the following
additional issue.
“(i) Whether termination of the contract by the
respondent No.2, Chief Engineer, PHED before
thirteen months of expiry of the stipulated period is
justifiable in view of the report of the Expert
Committee, dated 18.12.2024, that the contract can
be completed within a period of twelve months?
Mr.S.Nepolean, learned Government Advocate has
raised objection to the additional issue on the ground that this was
not one of the grounds pleaded in the writ petition and the report
of the Expert Committee dated 18.12.2024 has been submitted on
the instruction of this Court for enabling to find an amicable
settlement between the parties and the same could not be relied as
a document on merit.
Parties are permitted to argue on the admissibility of
this additional issue also.
List this case on 17.1.2025 as part heard
Mr.Ch.Ngongo, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that a direction be issued to the State
respondents to produce the copy of the letter dated 9.11.2023
issued by the Administrative Department, PHED to the Chief
Engineer, PHED intimating to terminate the contract awarded to the
petitioner on the next date.
Learned Government Advocate may produce the
letter, if available, on the next date.
Furnish a copy of this order to learned counsel for the
parties, in the course of the day.
JUDGE
Priyojit
RAJKUMA Digitally signed
by RAJKUMAR
R PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2024.12.21
SINGH 11:53:43 +05’30’
