Failure to complete licensed riverbed work within time permits cancellation and security forfeiture.

The petitioner received a licence under the Uttarakhand River Training Policy to remove riverbed material from the Ramganga River in Tehsil Thal, Pithoragarh.

The District Magistrate cancelled the licence and ordered forfeiture of the petitioner’s security deposit on 1 October 2019.

The petitioner argued that the work order was issued only in June 2019, required manual removal by 30 June 2019, and that heavy rains and the swollen river made timely completion impracticable.

The State relied on the tender press note, which required manual removal within two months, and on a work-order clause permitting cancellation without prior notice for non-compliance with the Policy and applicable rules.

It also submitted that the uncompleted work impaired river channelisation and caused loss to adjoining villages and State revenue.

1. Whether the Court should interfere with cancellation of the petitioner’s licence for failure to complete the riverbed-removal work within the stipulated period.

2. Whether forfeiture of the petitioner’s security deposit was justified under the licence and work-order conditions.

The Court applied the conditions of the tender notice, licence and work order, together with the Uttarakhand River Training Policy.

It held that the licensee was bound by those conditions and that forfeiture of security was referable to the licence and work-order terms.

The petitioner had participated in the tender process subject to the stated requirement that riverbed material be removed manually within two months.

The work order also authorised cancellation without prior notice if the work was not completed in accordance with the Policy and applicable rules.

The Court accepted the State’s submissions concerning the failure to carry out the assigned work and the consequences for river channelisation and adjoining villages.

Because the petitioner was bound by the licence and tender conditions and did not complete the work within the stipulated time, the Court found no sufficient basis to interfere with cancellation or the related forfeiture.

The writ petition was dismissed.