M/S Engineering Projects India Ltd v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar 's or der w it h Sig nat u r es COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

05.12.2

WPMB No. 550 of 2024 Hon 'ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J. Hon 'ble Vivek Bh ar t i Sh ar m a, J.

Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for petitioner.

¶2Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶3Petitioner has challenged Show Cause Notice dated 19.11.2024 issued by Engineer-in-Chief cum Head of Department, Uttarakhand Public Works Department. In the said Show Cause Notice, it has been stated as under: - "18. In light of the foregoing, and after a thorough review of EPIL's letter dated 08-10-2024, the Public Works Department (PWD) is issuing this final show cause notice under Clause 5 of the subject Contract Agreement dated 27-09-2019, requesting you to explain why the Contract Agreement dated 27-09-2019 should not be terminated for breach of terms and conditions.

¶19EPIL is hereby required to provide a detailed written explanation, along with any relevant supporting documentation, justifying your position on the matters raised in this notice. EPIL's response must reach this office within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice. Failure to provide a satisfactory response within the stipulated timeframe will leave PWD with no choice but to initiate termination of Contract

Agreement under Clause 5 and take further action as deemed necessary under applicable law and the terms of the agreement.

¶20This action, if initiated, will include but not be limited to the imposition of liquidated damages as outlined in Clause 13 of the Contract Agreement and recovery of any utilized funds or amounts due to PWD. The onus of all consequences arising from such action will rest solely upon EPIL. We trust you will give this matter your immediate and earnest attention to avoid such measures."

¶4Learned State Counsel submits that the writ petition is premature, as petitioner can submit his reply to the Show Cause Notice impugned in the writ petition. He further submits that there is an arbitration clause contained in Clause-19 of Agreement entered into between petitioner and Uttarakhand Public Works Department.

¶5Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is not responsible for delay and the delay was on the part of Uttarakhand Public Works Department, which failed to enter into an Agreement with Indian Railways.

¶6We are not inclined to go into the question whether the delay is on the part of petitioner or it was on the part of the employer.

¶7Since petitioner has challenged the Show Cause Notice and he has a remedy of submitting a reply to the said Show Cause Notice, therefore, we dismiss writ petition as premature, with liberty to petitioner to give reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 19.11.2024. ( Vivek Bh ar t i Sh ar m a, J) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, ACJ)

05.12.2024 05.12.2024 Rathour

PRAVINDRA S RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3a eb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6 179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA S RATHOUR Date: 2024.12.07 12:25:42 +05'30'