[ad_1]
KUALA LUMPUR (Bernama): The High Court dismissed an application by Dhaya Maju-LTAT Sdn Bhd, the contractor for the Klang Valley Double Tracking Phase 2 (KVDT2) rehabilitation project, to obtain an injunction to prevent the government from rescinating his contract for the project, pending settlement of its main claim.
High Court (Construction Division) Judge Datuk Aliza Sulaiman dismissed the application pending resolution of the contractor’s claim against the government and Transport Minister Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong (Photo), as the first and second defendants respectively.
In dismissing the request, Judge Aliza said that the court is bound by the previous Federal Court decision that ruled that a court order cannot be issued against the government and public officials (in the performance of their public functions).
“I am inclined to follow the decision (of the Federal Court) by not allowing the provisional injunction against the government and the public official and therefore this application is dismissed with costs of RM10,000,” he said.
The lawyer Tan Sri Cecil Abraham representing Dhaya Maju-LTAT then informed the court that the company would file an appeal against the decision with the Court of Appeal.
The project was criticized after Finance Minister Tengku Datuk Zafrul Abdul Aziz published the list of 101 projects awarded through direct negotiations worth RM6.61bil during the Pakatan Harapan administration.
This includes the KVDT2 project awarded to Dhaya Maju LTAT worth RM4,475bil.
On August 28, Dr. Wee in a statement said that the ministry would reopen the tender for the KVDT2 project after taking into consideration the results of an extensive study and investigation that found that the cost of said project under Dhaya Maju-LTAT was Overrated during the Pakatan Administration.
Earlier, Abraham claimed that Dr. Wee’s press release gave the impression that the contract was going to be terminated.
“We are not restricting the government and the minister in the performance of their public functions, this case today is purely contractual in nature, as we intended to maintain the status quo,” he said.
Senior Federal Counsel (SFC) Habibah Haron responded that the project involved billions of ringgit and could not be decided via a press release.
SFC Asliza Ali added that any cancellation of a project must be followed by a formal notification of termination.
“In our case, there is no formal notice of termination, for them (the plaintiff) it is premature to proceed with this civil action,” he said, adding that the government must comply with its public duty regarding the KVDT2 project since (the project ) has the element of public interest.
Then, the court set October 19 to handle the case.
According to the lawsuit filed on September 7, Dhaya Maju-LTAT, among others, seeks a statement that there is a valid and binding contract between the company and the government by means of an acceptance letter dated August 19, 2019.
The plaintiff also requests a statement that any termination or cancellation of the contract by the defendants will be invalid, illegal and unlawful, in addition to a court order against both defendants to restrict and prevent them from acting or taking action in relation to any cancellation or termination. of the contract.
Dhaya Maju-LTAT, among others, is asking the government for the outstanding amount of RM 137,054,534.21 and an interest of five percent per year on the outstanding amount until the date of the judgment and the final agreement.
The company also seeks to have damages assessed for Dr. Wee’s liability, interest, costs, and other reparations that the court deems timely and appropriate to award.
In its claim, the plaintiff, an 80:20 joint venture between Dhaya Maju Infrastructure (Asia) Sdn Bhd and Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT) established on June 5, 2017, under the Companies Act 2016, received the KVDT2 Project through a Letter of Acceptance dated April 4, 2018, with the original contract valued at RM5.58bil.
The company said it had started work on the project immediately upon issuance of the original contract, but the change of government after the XIV General Election resulted in the original contract being unilaterally terminated on October 19, 2018, through of a notice of termination issued by the Transport. Secretary general of the ministry supposedly for reasons of public interest or national security or national interest.
The plaintiff said that following the termination of the original contract, several meetings or discussions were held between the parties that culminated in the execution of the settlement agreement on August 19, 2019.
The company said that, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, it was awarded the project again with the revised contract amount of RM4,475bil, and that it had duly fulfilled its obligations, allowing the project to make progress. healthy. 24 percent, made possible by 1,512 dedicated employees and 261 supply and service companies.
To date, the plaintiff said he has completed works that had been certified for the overpayment of RM300,763,033.12 as of the period ending June 30, 2020.
The company said that, in March 2020, there was again a change in Malaysia’s political landscape, which saw a new coalition government known as Perikatan Nasional come to power and which, once again, resulted in the plaintiff finding himself in the midst of controversy, confusion. and uncertainty regarding the project.
The plaintiff said that, for reasons unknown to him, both defendants refused or failed to perform the relevant contract documents even though there is an express requirement that they do so within a period of four months from the date of issue. of the Letter of Acceptance. in accordance with the corresponding Treasury Circular, which to date, said the plaintiff, the corresponding documents have not yet been signed.
He said that despite the existing contract between the plaintiff and the government, Dr. Wee had announced on August 28, through a press release, among other things, the decision to cancel or terminate the contract with the plaintiff and reopen the bidding process of the project through an open bidding system.- Bernama
[ad_2]
