Disposed

Rishiraj Singh v. National Highways Authority of India and Ors.

Delhi HC27 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/11717/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to consider their representation and grant force majeure relief regarding damages from floods. Court directed respondents to pass a speaking order within seven days without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents to consider Petitioner's representation dated 27.07.2024 and pass a speaking order within seven days.

Rishiraj Singh Vs National Highways Authority… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11717/2024 & CM APPL. 48723/2024, CM APPL. 48724/2024

¶4

RISHIRAJ SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Parmod Kalirana, Mr. Manish Choudhary and Ms. Amiya Vaid, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Standing Counsel.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 27.08.2024

¶10

The present petition seeks to direct the Respondents to a) consider Petitioner’s representation dated 27^th July, 2024 and b) grant force majeure relief to the Petitioner as per Clause 25 of contract dated 04^th September, 2023,¹ executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1/ National Highways Authority of India.²

¶11

On 14^th July, 2023, Respondent No. 1 issued a Request for Proposal for engagement of user fee collection agency for Pasyih fee plaza located at km 74.000 for the section from km 69.200 to km 108.200 (Jowai Meghalaya

¶12

1 “the Contract”

¶13

2 “NHAI”

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2024 at 12:35:59

¶16

Section) of NH-44 in the state of Meghalaya and upkeep/maintenance of adjacent toilet blocks, including recouping the consumable items.

¶17

The Petitioner emerged as the highest bidder and accordingly, was awarded the work through Contract dated 04^th September, 2023, for a period of one year with an agreed annual remittance of INR 11,42,51,000/- by the Petitioner to the Respondents. According to the Petitioner, they took all steps to execute the work smoothly in consonance with the provisions of the Request for Proposal and the Contract, and remitted the agreed amount to the Respondents without fail.

¶18

It is asserted that in May, 2024, the State of Meghalaya witnessed unprecedented rainfall, resulting in extreme weather conditions including landslides and floods, which resulted in loss of lives and damage to infrastructure facilities, thus affecting the day-to-day lives of residents and inhabitants. Due to these weather conditions, the road network, including National Highway sections over which the Pasyih User Fee Plaza is located, was severely damaged and affected. Further, the road connectivity was also affected on account of floods and landslides, and NH-6 was also severely damaged. To support this contention, reliance is placed on order dated 08^th July, 2024 passed by the High Court of Meghalaya in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 11/2022,³ as well as newspaper reports and government press releases, which has covered the floods and landslides.

¶19

According to the Petitioner, the afore-noted events and severe weather conditions have the effect of triggering Clause 25 of the Contract, which is

¶20

3 Titled ‘ Kynjaimon Amse v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) & Ors .’

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2024 at 12:35:59

¶23

the force majeure clause. In such circumstances, the Petitioner started corresponding with the Respondents through various communications commencing from 31^st May, 2024, followed by several other letters in June and July, 2024. A detailed representation was submitted on 27^th July, 2024, which has still not been responded to. However, since no response was received from the Respondents within the prescribed time period, the Petitioner, through communication dated 05^th August, 2024, invoked Clause 25(c)(iii) of the Contract and issued notice of termination of the same. This was also followed up by another representation dated 21^st August, 2024, calling upon the Respondent to decide the force majeure claims.

¶24

It is contended that the Respondents have not considered or addressed the Petitioner’s invocation of the force majeure clause. In fact, on the other hand, the Respondents issued communication dated 19^th August, 2024, directing the Petitioner to pay the outstanding remittance amount of INR 13,22,446/-. In the above background, Petitioner has approached the Court through the instant petition.

¶25

At the outset, counsel for Petitioner states, on instructions, that he is confining the reliefs sought in the present petition to only seeking directions for the Respondents to consider and decide their representation dated 27^th July, 2024.

¶26

Mr. Santosh Kumar, Standing Counsel representing Respondents, denies all the allegations made in the present petition and argues that in view of an alternate dispute resolution mechanism of arbitration provided in the Contract where disputes such as the one at hand can be adjudicated, the present petition is not maintainable. Nonetheless, he states that insofar as the

¶27

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2024 at 12:35:59

¶28

decision on the representation dated 27^th July, 2024 is concerned, the same shall be taken within one week from today. This statement is taken on record.

¶29

In light of the statement made by Mr. Kumar, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to take a decision on the Petitioner’s representation dated 27^th July, 2024 by passing a speaking order within seven days from today, which shall be communicated to Petitioner.

¶30

It is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. All rights and contentions of parties are left open. In case the decision is adverse in nature, Petitioner shall be entitled to take recourse to appropriate remedies against the same as available to them, in accordance with law.

¶31

With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of, along with pending applications.

¶32

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶33

AUGUST 27, 2024 d.negi

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2024 at 12:35:59

Rishiraj Singh v. National Highways Authority of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishiraj Singh v. National Highways Authority of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Supreeti Chahal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr Harshita Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sitapur Shiksha Sansthan Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ajay Kumar Chaudhary

Shri Rakesh Garg Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anil Kumar Jain Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sambhaji Suresh Thombare Vs Union of India & Ors.

M S Associates Vs UOI & Anr.

S K Enterprises Vs Union of India & Ors.

World Phone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

G M Trading Company Vs Union of India & Ors.

Irb Infrastructure Trust Vs National Highways Authority of India

Smt. Senora Begum Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nandan Mukherjee Vs Union of India through Ministry of Heavy Industries