Dismissed

Ms Wheels Represented Through Its Authorized Signatory Sri Naroo Gopal Das v. Union Of India Through The General Manager South Eastern Railway And Ors.

Jharkhand HC11 Aug 2016WPC/4434/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a notice for outstanding dues. Court conditioned permission to participate in a tender on deposit of balance amount while excluding adjudication on forfeiture of earnest money or confiscation of structures, leaving those issues open for competent authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to participate in tender upon balance deposit; issues of earnest money forfeiture and hoarding confiscation left open.

Ms Wheels Represented Through Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 4434 of 2016

¶3

M/s. Wheels, a Proprietorship Firm, represented through its Authorized Signatory, namely, Sri Naroo Gopal Das,

¶4

... ... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Rich, Kolkata

¶7

2.Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur

¶8

3.Divisional Commercial Manager (F), South Eastern Railway, ... ... Chakradharpur ... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶10

............

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Krishanu Ray For the Respondents : Mr. Mahesh Tewari Mr. Gautam Rakesh Mr.Varun Prabhakar

¶12

3/11.08.2016

¶13

The order dated 10.08. 2016 is reads as under:-

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction submits that in response to the impugned Notice dated 04.08. 2016 [Annexure-8], issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur (Respondent No. 2), petitioner is ready to deposit the balance dues amounting to Rs. 25,04,712/- minus security amount already forfeited, by tomorrow. On such deposit, the petitioner should not be precluded from participating in any fresh tender floated by the respondents-Railway. Learned counsel for the Railway seeks one day's time to seek instruction on the proposal of the petitioner.

¶15

Accordingly, as prayed for by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel on behalf of Railways, list this case tomorrow i.e. 11.08. 2016 under the same heading.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Respondent-Railways Mr. Mahesh Tewari on instruction submits that if petitioner deposits the balance amount of Rs. 25,04,712/- minus security amount already forfeited, today, the respondents would not preclude the petitioner from participating in the tender notice dated 5th July 2016 which is scheduled to be opened on 12th August 2016 at 15:30 hrs. in relation to the award of the work of sole advertisement rights of Tatanagar station in three clusters for a period of three years, Annexure-10 to supplementary-affidavit dated 11th August 2016.

¶17

-2-

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready with draft of Rs. 14, 37, 868/- the amount which have been subtracted from Rs. 25,04,712/- being the security amount already forfeited as well as the earnest money which has been forfeited.

¶19

Petitioner however has taken the additional plea of forfeiture of earnest money paid in its supplementary-affidavit on which counsel for the Respondent-Railways could not have instruction for which the matter was adjourned yesterday.

¶20

In that view of the matter, petitioner if deposits the balance amount of Rs. Rs. 25,04,712/- minus security amount already forfeited, by today, respondents would permit him to participate in the tender in question. This court is not inclined to enter into question relating to the forfeiture of the earnest money of the petitioner and his plea for its adjustment in view of limited prayer made in the writ petition to allow to participate in the ensuing tender notice on depositing of amount of Rs. 25,04,712/- minus security amount as indicated in the order quoted hereinabove.

¶21

That issue is however left open for the petitioner to agitate before the competent authorities/Railways.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned notice Annexure-8 had threatened confiscation of the hoardings structures of the petitioner and realization of the outstanding dues through auction. Now that the Respondents are willing to accept the offer of the petitioner to deposit the outstanding dues, they may not confiscate the hoarding structure in question for realization of the outstanding dues. They may also permit the petitioner to keep the hoardings on payment of the amount stipulated under the agreement with the petitioner till the tender dated 05th July 2016 is finalized with successful bidders.

¶23

However, that issue is for the petitioner to pursue before the competent authority of the Railways.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶26

Binit

Ms Wheels Represented Through Its Authorized Signatory Sri Naroo Gopal Das v. Union Of India Through The General Manager South Eastern Railway And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Wheels Represented Through Its Authorized Signatory Sri Naroo Gopal Das v. Union Of India Through The General Manager South Eastern Railway 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

Geeta Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Suman Mishra And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Sunit Bouri Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rukmangad Pathak and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand And Others

Sima Kumara Vs Human Resources Department

Management of Central Bank of Vs Dinanath Tiwary And Anr.