Fortune Groups removed as respondent from legal proceedings
Fortune Groups contractor engaged in the ongoing Kohima-Mao National Highway 02 project, has been removed as respondent from the legal proceedings following the Supreme Court's ruling in a Special Leave Petition (SLP)
- KOHIMA — Fortune
Groups, the contractor engaged in the ongoing Kohima-Mao National Highway 02
project, has been removed as respondent from the legal proceedings following
the Supreme Court's ruling in a Special Leave Petition (SLP).
- It may be mentioned here that M/s Fortune Groups has, in May
2023, filed the SLP in the Supreme Court against the direction of the Gauhati
High Court, Kohima Bench, to complete the 2-lane road works without
compromising the quality by May 30.
- Hearing the matter on February 5, the Kohima Bench of
Gauhati High Court stated that it has perused the Supreme Court's order dated
18.12.2024 in the Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 9904-9905/2023, where it
observed that there was no dispute and that the contract in favour of the
contractor has been terminated.
- "In the light of the observation made by the Honourable
Supreme Court, we deemed it proper to strike out the respondent No. 9 as party
respondent from the case," the Division Bench Justices Manash Ranjan
Pathak and Kakheto Sema, stated.
- Citing the inspection report filed by the Amicus Curiae on
February 3, 2025, the court observed that that the contractor for stretch 1
(Lerie gate to Kigwema village) has completed 70% of the maintenance and repair
work and at least another 45 days beyond the deadline (January 30, 2025) would
be required for its completion.
- Similarly, contractor for stretch 2 (Kigwema village to Mao
gate) has conveyed that 62% of the maintenance and repair work has been
completed and that another 45 days from the deadline (January 30, 2025) would
be required for its completion.
- However, MoRTH (respondent No. 1), managing director of
NHIDCL (respondent No. 2) and general manager of NHIDCL, PMU Jakhama
(respondent No. 8) have submitted that only the contractor for stretch 1 has
submitted a representation for extension of the maintenance and repair work and
not the contractor for stretch 2.
- "On further enquiry from the learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 8 as to whether the representation for extension of
time for maintenance and repair work for the first stretch as submitted by the
first contractor has been considered, the learned counsel submits that the
representation is under active consideration of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and
8," it added.
- The court has directed respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 8 to place
the upto date report as to whether the time sought for by the contractor for
stretch 1 for the maintenance and repair work of stretch 1 has been granted or
not.
