Construction of strategic bridge in Leh
Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Jan 1: High Court has dismissed the plea seeking quashing of NIT issued by the Border Roads Organization (BRO) for construction of strategic bridge on Leh-Chalunka road citing vital importance of the bridge in question cannot be permitted to hang in balance till the arbitrator passes order on dispute.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal said the impugned NIT cannot be quashed merely because the termination of contract, awarded earlier in favour of the petitioner-Contractor, has been held to be bad in law, more particularly when the authority concerned has been directed by the Arbitrator to pass fresh orders.
“The authority may or may not pass the order in favour of the petitioner and till the same is done, the fate of the construction of a bridge, of vital importance, cannot be permitted to hang in balance” read the judgment.
The aggrieved contractor firm was allotted work for “Design and Construction of 130. Mtr Span Major permanent bridge (Durga Bridge) at Km 173.55 on Leh-Chalunka Road vide letter of acceptance dated 31st July, 2020. After exchange of numerous communications between the petitioner-contractor and the official of BRO, the Colonel, being the officiating Chief Engineer, vide communication dated 12 May 2023, cancelled the contract allotted in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 12th May, 2023 on the ground that of poor response of the contractor-petitioner and the progress of just 3.30% till May, 2023 as the bridge in question is a bottleneck on an axis which is the only connectivity to the Southern Glacier, Sub-Sector Hanif and the Sub-Sector West, where the troops of Indian Army are deployed on icy high-altitude axis at close range of the Western enemy which demonstrates its strategic importance.
Justice Oswal noted that the rights of the petitioner-contractor have not been finally determined and the official respondents may or may not choose to assail the award passed by the Arbitrator and in the event, they choose not to do so, still the competent authority has to decide the issue in the light of directions of the Arbitrator, which may lead to time consuming further litigation.
“In fact, there appears to be no end to litigation in the near future and as such, the execution of the work cannot be allowed to remain in limbo till the litigation comes to an end. If the petitioner finds that wrong has been committed, the petitioner can resort to proceedings seeking damages, as it earlier sought before the Arbitrator, but cannot seek the quashing of NIT dated 25th April 2024 and letter of acceptance dated 23.09.2024”, court said.
The stand of the petitioner-firm is that the bridge in question is of strategic importance from the security point of view, as it will provide connectivity to the southern glacier, sub-sector Hanif and the sub sector West, where the troops of Indian Army are deployed on high altitude at close range of the western country, known to threaten the security of the country.
The court as such recorded that the capability of these soldiers is dependent upon the logistic support of the fragile 400 feet bailey suspension bridge which is in deteriorated condition and is of the limited load capacity. It is due to this reason that the construction of the bridge in question is of vital importance.
“The claims made by the petitioner before the Arbitrator clearly reveals that he has only commercial interest in the work, whereas the work in question is of strategic importance from the security point of view. When the commercial interest is pitted against the public and national interest, then the balance must tilt in favour of public and national interest”, Justice Oswal recorded.
This court, Justice Oswal added, cannot lose sight of the fact that the contract has been awarded to the private respondent-contractor, who has proceeded ahead with the execution of work and has also made huge investments. There is substance in the submission made by the senior counsel for the private respondent that the petitioner-contractor is in fact seeking the execution of the award through the medium of this writ petition, which has not yet attained any finality.
“In view of what has been considered and discussed, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed along with connected applications”, the court concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
