Court Quashes Show Cause Notice, Orders Work Continuation & Payment

The court quashed the show cause notice, directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue work as per the contract, and consider extending the completion period by six months. Timely payment of running bills was mandated to ensure no hindrance in work completion. The petition was allowed with no cost order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner.
2. Delay in the completion of the contractual work.
3. Payment of running bills to the petitioner.
4. Availability of alternative remedies, including arbitration.
5. Extension of time for completion of the contractual work.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 21.09.2015, arguing it was issued arbitrarily and without following the principle of natural justice. The court noted that the notice was issued in a non-speaking manner and without sufficient cause, as it was given only ten-eleven days after an internal communication (dated 10.09.2015) which indicated the petitioner was willing and ready to complete the work by the extended deadline of 31.12.2015. The court found this notice to be arbitrary and pre-planned, issued without proper reasoning or consideration of the circumstances, and thus quashed it.

2. Delay in the Completion of the Contractual Work:
The petitioner claimed that delays were caused by the respondents' failure to provide necessary drawings, designs, and permissions on time. The court acknowledged that the work period had been extended multiple times due to these delays, and the petitioner had completed more than 50% of the work by the time of the last extension. The court found that the petitioner was making progress, albeit slowly, and was willing to complete the work within the extended period.

3. Payment of Running Bills to the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that delayed or non-payment of running bills hindered their ability to manage the requisite infrastructure and pay laborers. The court directed the respondents to make regular payments of running bills within time, in accordance with the contract and departmental procedures, to ensure the petitioner could continue the work without financial hurdles.

4. Availability of Alternative Remedies, Including Arbitration:
The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy through arbitration, as per the contract. However, the court held that the presence of an arbitration clause does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the show cause notice was issued in an arbitrary and non-speaking manner. The court cited precedents to support its jurisdiction in such cases.

5. Extension of Time for Completion of the Contractual Work:
The petitioner sought an extension of six months beyond 31.12.2015 to complete the remaining work. The court observed that the petitioner appeared to be entitled to this extension, given the delays caused by the respondents and the near completion of the excavation work. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for an extension sympathetically, in the interest of public welfare and the timely completion of the project.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned show cause notice dated 21.09.2015, directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue the work as per the contract, and to consider extending the period for completion by six months beyond 31.12.2015. The court also mandated the timely payment of running bills to the petitioner, ensuring no hindrance in the completion of the contractual work. The petition was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.

---