Roads & Bridges Deptt rescinds work order for road project challenged in High Court

GANGTOK, 17 April: The Roads & Bridges Department has rescinded the work order issued for the Sangkhola Sumin Road cancelling the road construction project which had come under the scanner of the High Court following a writ petition filed by Delay Namgyal Barfungpa.
An order issued by the Department on 16 April states that the work order for the upgradation and premix carpeting, including protective & drainage works, for construction of the road along with Sangkhola Sumin Road from KM 15 to KM 19 and another work comprising 3 km of road from Sangkhola Sumin to Mangthan which had been awarded to Amit Agarwal has been rescinded. This follows the observation of the High Court of Sikkim earlier that the process of the awarding of the work to the said contractor by the State government prima facie appeared to be illegal and arbitrary. As earlier reported, the court had issued a stay order on further construction of the said road project.
Following the cancellation of the work order the court noted that the petition was now infructious. Mr. Barfungpa today claimed that this was a victory. It remains to be seen as to what the department will do with the central funds of Rs. 7 crore sanctioned for the said road project. Furthermore counsel for the respondent contractor claimed that Rs. 2 crore had already been invested by him in the road project.
The project pertains to the Sangkhola Sumin Road, for the construction of which the Cabinet had sanctioned Rs. 7,08,46,979 some months back. The road project was sanctioned under a centrally sponsored scheme relating to the north eastern region of the country. With the documents made available, it was observed that work to the tune of Rs. 46,39,880 out of the total cost had been executed by the contractor which comes to only 6.5% of the works having been completed.
In its last order, the High Court had observed that it was absolutely clear that the respondent contractor had been allotted two different contracts without advertisement. The court had further noted that the allotment of the two works without advertisement was prima facie arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the department and had ordered a stay on further execution of the works by the respondent contractor.
With the petition being disposed today, the court also observed that it was up to the respondent contractor to claim compensation for his expenses on the works from the department and for which a fresh petition could also be filed.
Appearing for the petitioner was Advocate Sudesh Joshi with Ms Manita Pradhan; for the state was Additional AG, JB Pradhan and for the respondent contractor, advocate Gulshan Rai Nagpal.