To avoid delay in implementation of infrastructure projects involving billions of rupees, the Supreme Court (SC) has asked the Centre and states, besides public sector undertakings, to simplify the contract procedure.
To avoid delay in implementation of infrastructure projects involving billions of rupees, the Supreme Court (SC) has asked the Centre and states, besides public sector undertakings, to simplify the contract procedure, as the existing system breeds corruption and nepotism while discouraging honest contenders.
“The use of multi-layered agreements with several printed annexures, each with cyclostyled amendments, and typed and hand written additions and deletions lead to confusion, uncertainty and delay in execution, apart from giving rise to avoidable disputes,” a bench of justices RV Raveendran and JM Panchal said on Thursday.
“It’s a nightmare for anyone wanting to understand, implement or enforce them (contract conditions),” the bench said.
“It helps greedy and unscrupulous contractors to make bloated claims and enables rule-minded or corrupt officers to play havoc with honest and bona fide contractors,” the judges observed, recommending that an agreement form must have all relevant clauses in a single document with sections dealing with different aspects or subjects, avoiding overlapping.
“The vagueness and confusion give unwarranted discretion and freedom to officers, leading to corruption and nepotism,” the court said. “A clear, simple and straightforward agreement is the need of the hour. Tens of thousands of engineering contracts are being entered into all over the country every day for infrastructure works without the necessary clarity, leading to avoidable disputes and considerable strain on the exchequer,” the judges observed, while expressing concern at the undue delay in initiation or completion of projects important for national growth and welfare of the people.
Two Kerala companies constructing a national highway under the state government had moved the court saying though their contracts did not specify an arbitration mechanism, the government invoked it to their disadvantage.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}