Dismissed

Sri. K.Chandrashekar v. The Union of India

Telangana HC18 Jan 2023WP/27582/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing writ petitions challenging the termination of multiple construction contracts for Road Under Bridges by South Central Railway. The Court held that despite delays in commencing work after Letter of Acceptance and failure to submit performance guarantees within stipulated time, the Railway followed the required GCC procedures, including issuance of notices, justifying termina

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of writ petitions challenging termination of contracts and forfeiture of bank guarantees; interim orders vacated.

Sri. K.Chandrashekar Vs The Union of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos. 23748, 237 49, 237 50 -237 51, 237 52- 237 53, 23754.23755.23756. 23757 AND 27582 0F 2022

¶7

WP NO: 23748 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at. FIat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, Tqa Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶10

...pE,,oNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶13

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway lvlanage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶14

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶15

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶16

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh-s15 801

¶17

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131C111, Tilaknagar X Roads, Hyderabad - 500 014

¶18

...RES,ONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in terminating the contract work awarded under Letter of Acceptance (LOA) No. GTLSouth-l016/010004800441 16 d|.29.10.2021 and forfeiting the Bank Guarantee (BG) No. 242O1GP0O3223221 dl. 24.12.2021 for Rs. 24,05,010/- and not considering the petitioners representations / letters daled 4.3.2022, 7.4.2022, 11.4.2022, 22.04.2022, 06.05.2022 and 10.05.2022 as illegal, high handed,

¶20

¶21

arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondenl No.4 and 5 to restore Bank Guarantee for Rs. 24,05,0101 by contract work awarded under Letter of Acceptance (LOA) No GTL-South- 1 01 6/01000480044'1 16 dt.29.1O.2021

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in tlre affidavit filed in support of tire petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to Restore the Bank Guarantee for Rs.24,05,0101 pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to allow the petitioner Company to continue the ongoing work and complete the construction of Road Under Bridge in lieu of LC.No.84 al Km 17616-7 BETWEEN kou-ane STATIONS AS 1 X5.00X2.50N/ RCC Box, and consequently release the payments in connection with the same, approve Thrust-bed drawing, sign the contract of RoB at LC.No.84^pending disposal of the above writ^petition

¶26

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to re-tender the construction of Road Under Bridges (RUB)No. 255-4 & 255-8 (Subway) in lieu of LC NO. 84 at km^'t 76/6-7 between KOU-ANE stations as 1 x 5.00 x 2.50M RCC Box by Box pushing method and not to allot the same to third parties pending disposal of the above writ^petition

¶28

lA NO: 4 OF 2022

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings^pursuant to the Tender notice No.Engg-GTL-South-1197 dated 18.05.2022 pending disposal of the W.P.No.23748 of 2022

¶30

lA NO: 5 OF 2022

¶31

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay

¶32

¶33

all further proceedings^pursuant to letter No. G/W.148/South/Sanyu^lnfra/WA-lll daled 23.O5.2022 pending disposal of the above writ^petition

¶34

lA NO: 6 OF 2022:

¶35

Between:

¶36

The Union of lndia, Ivlinistry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶37

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divrsional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway lvlanage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶38

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Engineer-Coord ination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶39

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer^(South), Office of the Divisional Railway lr,4anager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶40

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Rairway Manaser, Guntakal,ptf.1[ft5{Bl_?r$3l,urg$+, , ,".

¶41

AND

¶42

lvl/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at. Flat No.202, Plot No.'124, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶43

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118t3tct11'riraknasarx*'c#I"d."^l?lig,iBB9,9,llu*,*rspoNoENrNo.T

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

¶45

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 71612022 in lA No. 4 and 5 of 2O22 in WP 23748 of 2022

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶47

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶48

Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU, SC FOR BANK OF BARODA

¶49

WP NO: 23749 OF 2022

¶50

Between:

¶51

M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Manasing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at.Flat No.202, Plot No..12 4,^{Phase-2, Teja} Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

...PETtTtONER(S)

AND

'1 . The Union of lndia, Ministry oi Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶56

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway lvlanager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶57

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway N4anager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶58

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶59

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh-s15 801

¶60

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131C111, Tilaknagar X Roads, Hyderabad - 500 014

¶61

...REspoNDENTs

¶62

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court.may be pleased to issue an approprlate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in terminating the contract awarded under Letter of Acceptance No. Engg-GTLSouth- 1038/01000480042531 d1.29 09 2021 and invoking the^{(BG) No.} 242O1GPO02889821 dt. 25.11.2021 for Rs. 15,37,351.261 and not considering the petitioners representations / letters dated 06.05.2022 and 10.O5.2O22 as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, in violation of^principles of natural^justice, contrary to settled principles of law and consequently direct lhe respondent No.4 and 5 to restore the Bank Guarantee No.24201GP0O2889821 dl. 25.11.2021 by restoring the contract awarded under letter of Acceptance No. GUNTAKAL DIVISION^- ENGINEERING/Engg-GTL-south-1 038/01 000480042531 dt. 29.O9.2021

¶63

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶64

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, lhe High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents to restore the Bank Guarantee No.24201GP002889821 dl. 25.11.2021 for Rs.15,37,352/- pending disposal of the above writ petition

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

X 6.00 X 5.00 m RCC Box by Box pushing method and not to allot the same to third parties pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶69

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶70

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Tender notice No.Engg-GTL-South-'1 199 dated 18.05.2022 pending disposal of the W,P.No.23749 of 2022

¶71

lA NO: 4 OF 2022

¶72

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to |etter No. G/VV.148/South/Sanyu lnfra/lVA-lll dated 23.O5.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶73

lA NO: 5 OF 2022:

¶74

Between:

¶75

'1. The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶76

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶77

South Central Rarlway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶78

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶79

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisionar Railway Manager, Guntakal,ptl,1[ftF{gi.?.$3L.rP8ir, ,o u

¶80

AND

¶81

1 M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at.Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034, Sahrmika Nagar, Moula AIi, Hyderabad - 500040.

¶82

2 The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131C111, Tilaknagar X Roads, Hyderabad - 500 014 ...RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 7

¶83

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 71612022 in lA No.3 and 4 of 2022 in WP 23749 of 2O22

¶84

Counsel forthe Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶85

()

¶86

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶87

Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU,

¶88

SC FOR BANK OF BARODA

¶89

WP NO: 23750 OF 2022

¶90

Between:

¶91

M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at Flat No.202, Plot No.'l 24, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶92

...pETtTtoNER

¶93

AND

¶94

'1. The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶95

South Central Railway, Rep. by rts Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶96

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Seninor Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶97

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶98

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh-s15 801

¶99

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131C111, Tilaknagar X Roads, Hyderabad - 500 014

¶100

...RESPONDENTS

¶101

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nalure of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in terminating the contract awarded under Letter of Acceptance No. Engg-GTLSouth-1037/01000480042530 dl. 29.Og.2021 and forfeiting the Bank Guarantee (BG) No. 242O1GP0O2898421 d1.26.11 .2021 for Rs.15,37 ,3521-and not considering the petitioners representations / letters dated06.05.2022 and 10.O52O22 as illegal, high handed, arbil?ty, in violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondent No. 4 and 5 to restore Bank Guarantee (BG) No. 242O1GP0O2898421 dt.26.11-2021'for Rs.'15,37,3521by restoring thecontract awarded under Letter of Acceptance No. Engg-GTL-South 1037/01000480042530 dt. 29.09.2021

¶102

lA NO: 1 OF 20

¶103

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^may be^pleased to direct the respondents not to re{ender the construction of^{RoadUnder Bridges (RUB)} (Subway) in lieu of LC No.86 at km 179/13-'15 between KOU-ANE stations as 1 X 6.00 X 5.00 m RCC Box by Box^pushing method and not to allot the same to^third parties pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶104

lA NO: 2 oF2022

¶105

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents to restore the Bank Guarantee No. 24201GP002898421 dl: 26.11.2j21fot Rs.15,37,3521 pending disposal of the above writ petilion

¶106

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶107

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to letter No. G/VV.148/South/Sanyu InfraMA-lll dated 23.05.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶108

lA NO: 4 OF 2022

¶109

Petition under Section^'15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Tender notice No.Engg-GTL-South-1205 dated 18.05.2022 pending disposal of the W.P.No.23750 of 2022

¶110

lA NO: 5 OF 2022:

¶111

Between:

¶112

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶113

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶114

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Seninor Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶115

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶116

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisionar Rairway Manaser, Guntakar,ptf$[rtFffi1.?.$318Pfl1. , ,o u

¶117

AND

¶118

¶119

lvl/s. Sanyu lnfta Projects Pr vate Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at Flat No.202, PIot No.124, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶120

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21 1 1 ,t3tct 1 1' rilaknasar' *ouo:r

¶121

IurySr"JiB?1,;33?,9,K=-/RESpoNDENT No. 7

¶122

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dared 71612022 in lA No.3 and 4 of 2022 t^ WP 23750 of 2022

¶123

IA NO: 6 OF 2022

¶124

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased pleased} to vacate the interim stay order daled 71612022 in lA No.3 and 4 of 2022 in WP 23750 of 2022

¶125

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶126

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶127

Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU, SC FOR BANK OF BARODA

¶128

WP NO: 2375'l OF 2022

¶129

Between:

¶130

M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at. Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, Tqa Apa(ments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶131

...pETt.oNER

¶132

AN D

¶133

1 The Unron of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi, 2 South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶134

3 South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 80 1

¶135

4 South Central Railway, Rep. by its Seninor Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶136

q South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer^(South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶137

6 South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh-s15 801

¶138

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch. D.No.2-21118131C111, Tilaknagar X Roads, Hyderabad -500 014

¶139

...RE=,.NDENTS

¶140

¶141

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia praying that ln the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action^{of the respondent No.4in} terminating the awarded contract under Letter^{of AcceptanceNo, Engg-GTL-} South-1 039/01 000480042532 d1.2910912O21 and forfeiting the^Bank Guarantee No. 24201GP00289O421 dt.2511112021 for Rs.20,82,6441and not considering^the petitioners representations / letters dated06.05.2022 and 1O.O5.2022 as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, in violation of principles of nalural iustice, contrary to settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondent No. 4 and5 to restore the Bank Guarantee for Rs.20,82,6441- by restoring the contract under letter of Acceptance No. GUNTAKAL DIVISION -ENGINEERING/Engg-GTL-south1 039/01 000480042532 dt, 2910912021

¶142

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶143

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to re{ender the construction of Road Under Bridges (RUB) in lieu of LC No. 93 at km 189/9-1^'1 between OBVP Yard as 1 x 6.00 x 5.00m and 1 x5.00x2.50m RCC Box by Box pushing method and not to allot the same to third parties pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶144

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶145

Petition under Secllon 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the Bank Guarantee No. 24201GP00289O42'| dt. 25/1112021 for Rs.20,82,6441 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶146

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶147

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Tender notice No.Engg-GTL-South-1205 dated 10.06.2022 pending disposal of the W.P.No.23751 of 2022 and pass lA NO: 4 OF 2022

¶148

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay

¶149

¶150

all further proceedinqs pursuant to letter No. G/W.148/South/Sanyu lnfra/WA-lll dated 23.05.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶151

lA NO: 5 OF 2022:

¶152

Between:

¶153

'1. The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi.

¶154

South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunder; rbad. Telangana.

¶155

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶156

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Seninor Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶157

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Officsof the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 5'15 801

¶158

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisionar Railway Manase,,

¶159

"r"ilXtfp,oJrl?51?0.?.iiBlt_9R1. ,, ,..

¶160

AND

¶161

1 Iril/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at. Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034, Shantinagar, Hyderabad 500040,

¶162

2 The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-2111't3tct11'riraknagarX*""01.*Y.X"ffi

¶163

B?Li?ro.orPilSr=o*.spoNDENrNo.T

¶164

Petition under Section 15'l CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 71612022 in lA No.3 and 4 of 2022 in^tNP 237 51 of 2O22

¶165

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶166

Counsel for Responderrt Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶167

Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI SRINIVAS CHIfiURU, SC FOR BANK OF BARODA

¶168

WP NO 23752 0F 2022

¶169

Between:

¶170

M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at. Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, f eia Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶171

AND

¶172

...pETr.oNER

¶173

1 The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi

¶174

¶175

South Central Railway, Rep. by^its General^{Manager, Rail Niiayam,lll Floor,} Secunderabad. Telangana

¶176

South Central Railwat, Rep. by^{its Divisional Railway Manager, Officeof the} Divisional Railway Manage( Works), Guntakal,^{Andhra Pradesh-} 515⁸⁰¹

¶177

South Central Railway,, Rep. by its Seninor^{Divisional Engineer-Coordination} Office of the Divisional Railway Manager^{Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515801}

¶178

South Central Railway, Rep. by^{its Divisional Engineer (South), Officeof the} Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal,^{Andhra Pradesh - 5'15801.}

¶179

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional^{Finance Manager, Office} of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra^{Pradesh- 515801}

¶180

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131C111, Tilaknaqar X Roads, Hyderabad^- 500 0'14

¶181

...REspoNDENrs Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in terminating the contract awarded under Letter of Acceptance No. Engg - GTL - South - 1 051/01000480042996 d|.0711012021 and forfeiting the Bank Guarantee (BG) No. 24201GP0O2930921 for Rs.15,29,2O71-, and not considering the petitioners representations / letters dated dt. 06.05.2022 and dl. 1010512022 as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural .justice, contrary to settled principles of law and consequently direct lhe respondent No. 4 and 5 to return the Bank Guarantee No.24201GP002930921 dt. 0111212021 for Rs.15,29,2O11- by restoring the contract under letter of Acceptance No.Engg - GTL - south -'1051/01000480042996 dt. 0711012021

¶182

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶183

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the Bank Guarantee No .24201GP002930921 dt: 0111212021 for Rs.15,29,2071 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶184

:2OF 2022

¶185

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to re{ender the construction of Road Under Bridges (RUB) lieu of LC No. 99 at km 200119-21 PMT Station as 1 x 6.00 x 5.00m RCC Box by Box pushing method and not to allot the same to third parties pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶186

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶187

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Tender notice No.Engg-GTL-South-1205 dated 18.05.2022 pending disposal of the W.P.No.23752 of 2022

¶188

lA NO: 4 OF 2022

¶189

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to letter No. GAIV.148/South/Sanyu lnfraAiVA-lll dated 23.O5.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶190

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶191

Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU, SC FOR BANK OF BARODA

¶192

WP NO: 237s3 OF 2022

¶193

Between:

¶194

M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Pvt Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Rcddy, Office at Flat No.202, PIot No.124, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, l/adhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶195

...pE,,oNER

¶196

AND

¶197

The Union Of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶198

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage(Works Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶199

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Seninor Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway lr,4anager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶200

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer^(South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶201

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh-S15 801

¶202

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131C111, Tilaknagar X Roads, Hyderabad -500 014

...RES'.NDENTS

termrnating the awarded contract under Letter of Acceptance^{No. Engg-GTl-south-} 101S/0100041880 dt.17.O9.2021 and forfeiting the Bank Guarantee^(BG)No. 242O|GPO02757521 dt.09.11.2021for Rs.21,11,4151- and^{not consideringthe} petitioners representations / letters dated06.05.2022 and 10.05.2022 as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, in violation of^principles of natural^justice, contrary^to settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondent No. 4 and 5^to restore the Bank Guarantee or Rs.Rs.21,11,4151- by restoring lhe^contract awarded under letter of Acceptance No.Engg-GTl-south-1019/01 000480041 880 dt. 07.9.2021

¶207

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶208

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents not to re-tender the construction of Road Under Bridges (RUB) in lieu of LC No. 140 at km 302/9 between YA-KMH Stations as 2 x 4.50 x 5.00m RCC Box by Box pushing method and not to allot the same to third parties pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶209

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶210

Petitron under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the Bank Guarantee No. for Rs.21 , 1 1 ,415/- pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶211

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶212

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Tender notice No.Engg-GTL-South-'1205 dated 18.05.2022 pending disposal of the W.P.No.23753 ot 2022

¶213

lA NO: 4 OF 2022

¶214

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to letter No. G/W-148/South/Sanyu lnfraruA-lll dated 23.05.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition

lA NO: 5 OF 2022:

Between:

'1. The Union Of lndia, I,4inistry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶219

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage(Works Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶220

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Seninor Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway l,"4anager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶221

South Central Railway, Rep. by rts Divisional Engineer (South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶222

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisionar Railway Manaser, Guntakal, o"lli?fil?9ft!k?l:.ur%*or"r"

¶223

AND

¶224

1 M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Pvt Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, lvladhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶225

2 The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118t3tct11'riraknagar**o"o',.f

¶226

Yror%f, B?ori?ro&Pr'6r.o*.spoNDENrNo.T

¶227

Pelition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 71612022 in lA No.3 and 4 of 2022 in WP 23753 ot 2O22

¶228

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶229

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶230

Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU,

¶231

SC FOR BANK OF BARODA

¶232

WP NO: 23754 OF 2022

¶233

Between:

¶234

Mis. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at- Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, TEa Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶235

...pETt,oNER

¶236

AND

¶237

The Union of lndia, lt4inistry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Cenkal Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad Telangana.

¶238

3 louth Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶239

Sor.rth^r:-entra_L Rarlway, Eep Oy its Senrnor Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Rarlway Manager Guntakal, Andhia pradesh- S.l5 g01

¶240

¶241

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Offlce of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶242

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance lvlanager, Office of the Divisional Rarlway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh-s15 801

¶243

The Branch lr.4anager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131C111, TilaknagarX Roads, Hyderabad - 500 014

¶244

...REspoNDENrs

¶245

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 n terminating the contract awarded under letter of Acceptance No. GUNTAKAL DIVISION - ENGINEERING/Engg-GTL-south-1052/01000480042990 dated 07.10.2021, and invoking the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 15,86,606/- by not considering the petitioners representations / letters dated 06.05.2022 and 10-O5.2022 as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural .justice,^{conlrary to settled principles of law andconsequently direct the respondent} No.4 and 5 to return the Bank Guarantee No.24201GP002930621 dated 01.12.2021 for Rs.15,86,606/- by restoring the contract under letter of Acceptance No. Guntakal Division-Engineering/Engg-GTl-south-1052/ 01000480042990 dt07.10.2021

¶246

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶247

Petition under Seclion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to re-tender the construction of Road Under Bridges (RUB) lieu of LC No. 10'l al km 20419-11 between PMT - RJP Stations as 1 x 6.00 x 5.00m RCC Box by Box pushing method and not to allot the same to third parties pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶248

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶249

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to return the Bank Guarantee No. 24201GP002930621 dt01.12.2021 for Rs.15,86,606/- pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶250

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶251

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay

¶252

¶253

all further proceedings pursuant to the Tender notice No.Engg-GTL-South- 1205 dated 18.05.2022 pending disposal of the W.P.No.23l54 of 2022

¶254

lA NO: 4 OF 2022

¶255

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to letter No. G/VV.148/South/Sanyu lnfra/VVA-lll daled 23.05.2022 pending disposal of the above writ^petition

¶256

lA NO: 5 OF 2022:

¶257

Between:

¶258

The Union of lrrdia, Ministry of Railways, Rep,by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep- by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telanqana.

¶259

South Central Railway, Rep. by^its Divisional Railway^{Manager, Officeof} the Divisional Railway lvlanager( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶260

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Seninor Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶261

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer^(South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶262

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manaser, Guntakal,.AndffirEfslR?t-iJfi&oJrr, ,o u

¶263

AND

¶264

1 M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at- Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, N,4adhapur, Hyderabad -500 034, Shantinagar, Hyderabad 500040.

¶265

2 The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21 1 18t3tct1 1' riraknasar' '"0::.P.X%f,8?1,i,PP9,9,K.ouspoNoENr

¶266

No. 7

¶267

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit flled in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto vacate the interim stay order dated 7 6 2022 in l.A No.3 and 4 of 2022 in WP 23754 ot 2022

¶268

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶269

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶270

Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU, SC FOR BANK OF BARODA

WP NO: 23755 OF 2022

Between:

M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited,^Rep. by its^IVanaging Director^Sri. P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at Flat No.202, Plot No.'124, Phase-2,^Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad^-500 034.

¶275

...pE,,oNER

¶276

AND

¶277

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad, Telangana.

¶278

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 518 801.

¶279

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801.

¶280

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer^(South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 5'1 5 801 .

¶281

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh-s15 801 .

¶282

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131C111, Tilaknagar X Roads, Hyderabad - 500 014.

¶283

.__RESpoNDENTS

¶284

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in terminating the awarded conlract under Letter of Acceptance No. Engg-GTLSouth- 1040/01000480042533 dl.29logl2o21 and forfeiting the Bank cuarantee (BG) No. 24201GP002890821 dl. 2511112021 of Rs. Rs.16,34,629/- and not considering the petitioners representations / letters dated 06/05/2022 and 1OlOSl2O22 as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, iri violation of principles of natural iustice,^{contrary to settled principles of lawand consequently direct the respondent} No.4 and 5 to return the Bank Guarantee or Rs.16,34,629/- by restoring the contract awarded contract under Letter of Acceptance No. Engg-GTL-South1 040/01 000480042533 dt. 29t0912021

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

RCC Box by Box pushing method and not to allot the same to third parties pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶289

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶290

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the Bank Guarantee No. for Rs.16,34,629/- pending disposal of the above Writ Petilion

¶291

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶292

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances-stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings^pursuant to the Tender notice No.Engg-GTL-South-1205 dated 18.05.2022^pending disposal of the W.P.No.23755 of 2022

¶293

lA NO: 4 OF 2022

¶294

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to letter No. G,AIV.148/South/Sanyu lnfraMA-lll daled 23.05.2022 pending disposal of the above writ^petition

¶295

lA NO: 5 OF 2022:

¶296

Between:

¶297

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad, Telangana.

¶298

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801.

¶299

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801.

¶300

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 51 5 801 .

¶301

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, o"lli?fl?9ftEk?l3"ur%orr,

¶302

AND

¶303

1 M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri. P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034.Sharmikanagar, Moula ali, Hyderabad.

¶304

2 llg^.91a1..!', h,4anager,^{Banh of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch,D.No.2-2} 1118131C111. Titaknagar X Roads. Hyderabad - S00 0i4. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.7

¶305

¶306

Petrtion under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased} to vacate the interim slay order daled^{71612022 in lA No.3and 4 of 2O22 in \NP} 23755 of 2022

¶307

Counsel forthe Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR^REDDY

¶308

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN^KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶309

Counsel for Respondent No.7: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU,

¶310

SC FOR BANK OF BARODA

¶311

WP NO: 23756 OF 2022

¶312

Between:

¶313

M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at. Flat No.202, Plot No.1 24, Phase-2, f eja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, triladhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶314

...pE,.oNER

¶315

AND

¶316

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶317

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage(Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶318

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Rarlway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶319

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶320

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh-sl5 801

¶321

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131C111, Tilaknagar X Roads, Hyderabad - 500 014

¶322

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia ,rrr;ffT:i?"=1;: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in terminating the awarded contract under Letter of Acceptance No. Engg-GTLSouth-1041/01000480042535 dl. 29.09.2021 and forfeiting the Bank Guarantee (BG) No.24201GP002889521 d|.25.11.2021 for Rs.15,37,352/- and not considering the petitioners representations / letters dated06.05.2022 and 10.05.2022 as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondent

¶323

l(l

¶324

No. 4 and 5 to return the Bank Guarantee of Rs.15,37,352/- by restoring the contract under letter of Acceptance No. GUNTAKAL DIVISIONENGINEERl NG/Engg-GTL-south- 1 041 / 0 1 000480042535 dt. 29.09.2021

¶325

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶326

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to the Bank Guarantee No. 24201GP002889521 dt.25.11.2021 for Rs.15,37,3521 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶327

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶328

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstance6 stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents not to re-tender the construction of Road Under Bridges (RUB)lieu of LC No. 95 at km 194119-21 between OBVP-PMT Stations as I x 6.00 x 5.00m RCC Box by Box pushing method and not to re allot the same to third parties pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶329

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶330

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Tender notice No.Engg-GTL-South-1202 dated 18.05.2022 pending disposal of the W.P.No.23756 of 2O22

¶331

lA NO: 4 F 2022

¶332

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^stay all further proceedings pursuant to letter No. G/vV.148/South/Sanyu lnfraMA-lll dated 23.05.2022 pending disposal of the above writ^petition

¶333

lA NO: 5 OF 2022:

¶334

Between:

¶335

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary,^NewDelhi. 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶336

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager(Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶337

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶338

¶339

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer^(South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶340

South Central Rarlway, Rep. by rts Senior Divjsional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Rairway rvranaser, Guntakal,ptf,1[ft5{gf_?.$31,.r3,?]r, ,",

¶341

AND

¶342

M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at. Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2,^Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, I'ladhapur, Hyderabad^{-U09.333ro*o.*r/pElloNER}

¶343

The Branch lvlanager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131c111' Tilaknasar X Roads' Hvderab"1."?gg3r13r-"RESpoNDENr

¶344

No.7

¶345

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 71612022 in lA No.3 and 4 of 2022 in WP 23756 of 2022

¶346

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶347

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶348

Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU, SC FOR BANK OF BARODA

¶349

\NP NO:23757 OF 2022

¶350

Between:

¶351

M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Direclor Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034

¶352

...pETrTtoNER

¶353

AND

¶354

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rdp.by its Secretary, New Delhi 2. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶355

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶356

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Seninor Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶357

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶358

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway lr,lanager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh-s15 801

¶359

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118131C111, Tilaknagar X Roads, Hyderabad -500 014

¶360

...RESPONDENTS

¶361

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

¶362

pleased to issue an appropriate Wri1, Order or direction more particularly one in lhe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in terminating the contract contract work awarded under Letter of Allotment No. Engg-GTL-South-'1050/01000480042995 dl. 07 .10.2021 and forfeiting the Bank Guarantee (BG) No. 242O1GP0O2942821 dt. O2.12.2O21 for Rs.19,32,066/-and not considering the petitioners representations / letters dated06.05.2022 and 10.O5.2022 as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to settled principles of law and ,consequently direct the respondent No.4 and 5 to restore the Bank Guarantee (BG) No. 242O1GPOO2942821 dl. 02.12.2021 forRs.19,32,0661 by restoring the- contract work awarded under Letter of Allotment No. Engg-GTL-South1 050/01 000480042995 dt. 07.10.2021

¶363

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶364

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto restore the Bank Guarantee No. 24201GPO02942821 dt 02.12.2021 for Rs.'19,32,0661 pending disposal of the above writ^petition

¶365

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶366

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to re-tender the construction of Road Under Bridges^(RUB) lieu of LC No.98 at km 197125-27 between OBVP-PMT Stations as 1 x 6.00 x 5.00m⁺ 1 x5.00 x 2.50 RCC Box by Box pushing method and not to allot the same to third parties^pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶367

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶368

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Tender notice No.Engg-GTL-South-1205 dated 18.05.2022 pending disposal of the W.P.No.23757 ol 2022

¶369

lA NO: 4 OF 2022

¶370

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay

¶371

l -.i

¶372

all further^{proceedings pursuant to letter No. G/W.148/South/Sanyulnfra/wA-lll} dated 23.05.2022^pending disposal of^{the above writ petition and pass}

¶373

lA NO: 5 OF 2022i

¶374

Between:

¶375

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways,^{Rep.by its} Secretary,^{New Delhi} 2- South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail^Nilayam, lll^Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶376

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Managt:r,^{Office of} the Divisional Railway Manage( Works), Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh-^{515 801}

¶377

4- South Central Railway, Rep. by its Seninor Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶378

1. South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer^(South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh- 515 801

¶379

6- South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manaser, Guntakal,pelrdr[rtF#,0*?.N;31,u"3$1. , ,",

¶380

AND

¶381

1 M/s. Sanyu lnfra Projects Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Sudarshan Reddy, Office at Flat No.202, Plot No.124, Phase-2, Teja Apartments, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -500 034, Sharmikanagar, Hyderabad.

¶382

2 The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tilaknagar Branch, D.No.2-21118t3tct11'rilaknasarX*"'o::P.or%fr B?oi?ro&Pr'3ro=spoNDENrNo.T

¶383

¶384

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶385

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶386

Counsel for Respondent No.7: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU, SC FOR BANK OF BARODA

¶387

WP NO: 275A2 OF 2022

¶388

Between:

¶389

Sri. K.Chandrashekar, Rl/o. Railway station Road, 1st lane, Singarayakonda, Prakasham District, Andhra Pradesh-523101

¶390

...PETITIONER

¶391

AND

¶392

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Railways, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi.

¶393

¶394

South Centra Railway, Rep. by its General lvlanager, Rail Nilayam, lll Floor, Secunderabad. Telangana.

¶395

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway lVlanager (Works), Hyderabad Division,2nd Floor, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad -500025.

¶396

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Engineer-Coordination Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad -500025.

¶397

South Central Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer (South), Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad -500025.

¶398

South Central Railway, Rep by its Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad -500025.

¶399

The Branch Manager, Puniab and Sind Bank, Guntur Branch, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh

¶400

...RESP.NDENT'

¶401

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in terminating the contract awarded under Agreement of Agreement No. O3/DEN/L ines/HYD dt.04.06.2018and forfeiting the security deposit of Rs 25,63,0491 by not considering the^petitioners representations / letters dated 07.04.2022 and 24.05.2022 and contrary to the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia dated.25.06.2020 as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural^justice, contrary to settled^principles of law and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 and6 not to encash the Fixed^Deposits Rs 25,63,0491 from Respondent No.7 bank

¶402

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶403

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents not to encash the Bank Guarantee submitted under FDR No.5 16129 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶404

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶405

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents not to re{ender the contract (i) Secunderabad Dhone Station Through Formation Treatment (TFTR) for a length of 12 KMs (ii) Mudkhed - Secunderabad Station - Through Formation treatment (TFTR) for a length of 5.70

¶406

2-5

¶407

Kms and not to allot the same to third parties pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶408

Counsel forthe Petitioners: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶409

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶410

Counsel for Respondent No. 7: SRI S. SAINATHAN

¶411

SC FOR PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

¶412

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶413

TI{E HO\OUI{,{BLI- SItI JUSTICE K, LAKSHMAN

¶414

WR I'I' PE'l'l'l'lO N Nos. 237 18, 237 49, 23750, 237 5L231 52, 237 53, 237s{, 23755. 237s6,23757 AND 27582 0F 2022

¶415

coMMoN ouI)uR:

¶416

Lis ir,volved in these rvrit petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions werc hcard together rnd decided by way olthis common order

¶417

Hearrl Sri J.Venudhar Reddy, leamed counsel tbr the petitioners and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General ol lndi.r, appearing lbr respondents Railways and Sri Srinivas Chitturu, learncd standing counsel appearing for respondent Bank. Perused the reco rd.

¶418

These i,n rit pet.itions are filed to declare the action of 4th respondent in tcrn-rinating the awarded contract work under Letters of Acceptance (LOAs)/Contract Agreement of Works, without considering the representations o1'the petitioners, without following due process ol law and in violarion ol- Indian Railways Standard General Conditions of Contract (for short,^'GCC'). 1'he particulars of the contracts, tender value, LOAsiCorltract Agreenlent, notices including termination notices and Bank Guarantees are rnentioned case-wise in detail in the following tabular form:-

¶419

¶420

\'f, NO. 2374812022 :

¶421

nder Contract	ConstructionofRoadtjnderBridges (RiJB) No.255A.&255-B (iiubway)ililieuofLC NO.84Km.i7616-7bctweenKOU-nNE stationsasIx5.00x2.50MRCCBoxbv Boxpushing method
fcndervaluc i	Rs.8.01,66.977.25
L0Arielails l	LOA No.G]'L l0l6/010004800441r6. withl2months tenure - South dated29.10.2021
7davs notice	li-04-2022
48 hours notice	26-04-2022 I
'fclnrinationNotice	04-05-2022 l
Detailsof lorfeitcdand encashedBankGuarantee	(BC) No.24201GP003223221 24-12-2021 forRs. 24.05,01 0r-. .dl I dat
ThiustBctlsubraission	06.01.2022

¶422

wP12374912022:

¶423

l-ender Contract l I	ConstructionsofRoad UndcrBridges (RUB)(Subway)in lieuof LCNO. 89at Km183/29-3tbetweenANE Yard stationsasIX6.00X5.00 mRCC Boxby box I
Tender value	Rs.5,I2,45,041.84
t.OAdetails	LOANo.EnggGTL-South 1038/0100C480042531dated29-09-2021 with12monthstenure
da notlce 1	t3-04-2022
48 hours notice	26-04-2022
Tcrmination Notice	04-05-2022
Dctailsofforfeitedand encashedBankGuarantee I	BGNo.24201GP00288981dated25-ll- 2021for Rs. 15,37,35L26/-
'1'hrustIlcdsubniission	07.03.2022

¶424

\tPt2375012022:

¶425

'lenderContract	ConstructionofRoad tJnder Bridges (RUB)
	(Subway)inlieuolLCNO.86Km. I79ll3-15
I	betweenKOIJ-ANEstationsasIx6.00^x
fd I	5.00mRCC Box ushi method Box
.enervalue	Rs.5,12,45,041.84

¶426

¶427

[-0.{details	I.O,\ No. GTL South 10.17'01000480042530dated29-09-2021to l8I0.2022(12months)
snolrcrl 1	1t-04-2022
48 hours notic.r	)6-04-2022
Termination Notice	(.t.:-(t5-2027
Detailsofforf'eited and encashedBankGuarantee	UCNo. 2420IGP002898421dated26-l l-2021 tbr Its.15,37,3521
ThrustBed submission	t0.0t.2022
Pt2375U2027 -[ender Contract I	ConstructionolRoad Under Bridges (RUB) (SLrbway)inlieuof LCNO.93Km.I89/9-lI betrvcenOVBP YardstationsasIx6.00x 5.(X)mandIx5.00x2.50mRCC Box byBox ushin method I
l'ender valuc	Rs.6.94,21,443.95
I-OAdetails I	l.OA No. GTL South I0i9l01000480042532dated29-09-2021wirh 1lmonths notice.
noticc 7	t-1-01-2022
48hours notice	26-01-2022 t
TerminationNc,ticc	01-05-2022
Detailsof forleitedand encashedBankGtrarantce	BCiNo. 2420IGP002890421dated25-
TkustBed subrnission P123752/2022	to.01.2022
Tender Contract	C-onstructionofRoadUnderBridges (RUB) (Strhay)in lieuofLC NO. 99Km.200/19-21 bete enPMTstationYardstations asIx6.00 x5.00mRCC Box by Box pushingmethod
Tendervaluc	Rs.5.09,73 552.03
I-OAdctails	LOA No. GTL - South I05I^{/01000480042996}dated07- 10-2021with ilnronths I
7da noticc	Il-()l-2022

wPt2375U2027

v,tP123752/2022

.18hours ttutice	021
l'ernrinationNoticc	021
i)etailsollorleitedand	BGNJo.2420tGPA0293092tdated0l^-12-202I
encashcdllankGuarantec	forRs.15.29.207l- I
Designmixsubmission	24.12.202t

¶432

wP123753/2022 :

¶433

l'ender Contract	ConstructionofRoadUnderBridges (RUB) (Subway)inlieuofLC NO.140Km.30219 betrveenYA-KMHstationsas2x4.50x 5.00m RCCBox by Boxpushingmelhod
Tcnder value	Rs. 7.03,80,471 .37
LOAdctails I	LOA No. GTL - South 1053i0I000480042990datedI7-09-202Ir.vith [2months.
7da n()trce	Il-04-2022
48 hoursnoticc	26-04-2022 I
l'erminationNotice	04-05-2022
Detarlsollbrlcitcdand encashedBank⁽iuarantec	BG No.24201GP002757521dated09-ll-2021 forRs.2l,ll,415/-
Designmixsubnrission	24.12.202t

¶434

wP/23754/2022.

¶435

l'ender Contract	ConstructionofRoad UnderBridges (R[JB)(Subway)inlieuolLC NO.l0l Km.20419-IlbetweenPMT-RJP stations asIx6.00x5.00m RCCBoxbyBox
Tcnder value	Rs.5 28,86,860.09
t-OAdetails	LOA No. GTL - South I052/01000480042990 dated07-10-2021 withl2months tenure
7daysnotice	t3-04-2022
48 hours notice	26-04-2022
TernrinationNotice	04-05-2022
Detailsolforfeitedand encashedBankGuarantee	BG No.24201cP002930621dated0l-12- 2021 forRs.15,86,606/-
Designrnixsubmission	24.12.2022

¶436

)

¶437

wP123755t2.02) :

¶438

lcndcrContract	fonstructionolRoadUndcrBridgcs (RUB) \o2-55-A&255-U (Subu'ay)inlieuofLC NO.94atKm.l9l/7-9betweenOBVP-PMT stationsasIx6.00x5.00mRCCBoxbyBox pushing method.
'lendcrvalue	R.-i.44.87.616.39.
LOAdetails	LOA No. CTL - South I0.lt)/0I000480042533dated 29-09-2021wirh IImonths tenure
7da notlce	t1-44-202)
48 hoursnoticc	)(r(t1-)-022
'I'ermination Notice	0l-05-2022
Detailsoflorfcitedand encashedIlankGuarantce	Il(iNo.24201GP00289082Idated 25-
Designmixsuhmission	1.112.202l I

¶439

wPt23756t2022

¶440

TenderContract I I	ConstructionolRoadUnder Bridges(RUB)in licrrolLCNO.95atKm.194/19-21between OIIVI'PMfstationsasIx6.00x5.00m R(ClBorby Boxpushing method.
Tendervalue	Its5.I2.45,041.84
LOAdetails	LOA No. GTL - South-1040 /01000480042535 dated 29-09-2021with l2 r.n0nthstenure
7daysnotice	It-04-2022
48 hoursnotice	76-04-2022
Termination Notice	04-05-2022
Detailsofforfeitedand encashedBankGuarantee	B(iNo,2420lGI'00288952ILlated25-l
Designmixsubmission	24.12.2021

¶441

wP123757t2022:

¶442

l'ender Contracl	ConstmctionolRoadUnder Bridges (RUB)
	(Subnay)inlieuofLCNO. 98atKm.
	197t25-27 betweenOBVP-PMTstationsas
	Ir^(r.()0x5.00m+IX5.00X2.50MRCC
	BurbrBoxpushing method
Tender value	Rs.^{rr.44.02.169.89}

¶443

¶444

LOAdetails I l	l-OA No. G1'1. South -l 1050/01000480042990 dated07-I0-202I with^I llmonthstenure
7da snotloe	n-04-2oD
48hours notice	26-04-2022 l
Termination Notice	04-05-2022
Detailsofforleitedand encashedBank Guarantec	- BGNo. 24201GP00294282Idated 02-12-2021 lorP,s.19,32,066/-
Dcsignmixsubmission	21.t2.?.0)t

¶445

(for sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referrdd in W.P.No.23748 of 2022)

¶446

4. CON-I-EN'IIONS OF PETITIONER.

¶447

i) Even though the LOA was issued, the respondent No. 4 neither signed "Contract Agreement of Work" nor approved Thrust Bed drawings (TB drawings) as on today, whereas the period of contract starts with effect from the date of issuance of LOA. Thus, the respondent No. 4 caused abnormal delay in signing the contract of agreement of work itself. That apart, colnmencement of contract work mandates the approval of TB drawing by the respondent No. 4. Unless and until the drawing of the work is finally approved, the petitioner company cannot commence the work.

¶448

ii) The petitioner company addressed a letter to respondent No. 4 requesting to issue approved GAD drawings to proceed further to prepare designed drawings of the thrust bed and to submit the same duly proof checked by approved universities. Respondent No.4 submitted GAD drawings on24-01-2022,in tum, the petitioner company submitted TB drawings to respondent No. 4 on 05-03-2022 for their approval. But the

¶449

¶450

respondent No.4 neither signed the contract agreement nor approved the drawings as on date.

¶451

iii) White the work is in progrc.ss, there is shonage of 28 mm TMT Steel bars in the market which is proposed to be used in the structure, due to Covid-l9 as such the petitioner company addressed a letter to respondent No. 4 on 07-04-2022, ll-042022 and on 22-04-2022, requesting to give altemate solution for using 25 mm TMT Steel in place of 28 mm TMT Steel and again requested to approve to the drawings.

¶452

iv) White the petitioner was rvaiting fbr approval of thrust bed drawings, and continuously addressing letters to approve the thrust bed drawings, it received 7 days notice from the respondents under clause 62 of GCC threatening to terminate contract and complete the balance work without their participation for which the petitioner replied stating that the delay is caused due to non approval of TB drawings and also Covid pandemic and requested to take back 7 days notice. v) The petitioner also received a call tiom respondent No. 4 stating that they have served with 48 hours notices for several bridges. The petitioner issued a reply stating that it did not receive any such notice and requested to revoke termination of contract if initiated, and the work is delayed due to non approval of TB drawings and non providing altemative reinforcement design in place of 28 mm bars.

¶453

vi) In W.P.Nos.23750,23753.23754, 23755 and 23756 of 2022, the petitioner states that during the month ol lanuary 2022, there was a breach of Annamayya Project Dam due to Whit:h

¶454

¶455

Sand quarry a1 Chc,"-1 eru river has been stopped b1, the Government as such he addrcssed a letter to respondent No. 4 on 24-01-2022 requesting to address a letter to the District Collector, Cuddapah and the concerned Tahsildar to allot the source for construction of RUB's.

¶456

vii) The petitioner receiveci a message from the respondent Bank on 07-05-2022 showing that a huge amount of money is debited from it's A/c.No.09540400000158. on that it addressed a letter to Bank on 09-05-2022 seeking details about the withdrawal. The bank replied on A9-05-2022 itself stating that as per the request ol respondents Railways, the Bank Guarantee of all the contracts is invoked and an amount of Rs. 1,78,93,6331- is released to them for enchashment of Bank Guarantee.

¶457

viii) The respondents cannot terminate the contracts and cannot forfeit the Bank Guarantee unilaterally and in contravention of clause no.62 of GCC.

¶458

ix) Procedure laid down under GCC including ClauseNo.8, 22(1), 17(Axiii) was not followed.

¶459

x) The respondents failed to follow the procedures as contemplated under GCC including Clause No. 62 of the GCC by issuing three notices under proforma at Annexure - IX, Annexure - X or XII and Annexure XI or XII and unilaterally terminated all the contracts, including the subject contract and encashed the Bank Guarantee, without any fault on the part of the petitioner company.

¶460

¶461

xi) As the respondents caused delay in approving the thrust bed drawing, in signing the Contract Agrecment, the petitioner Company is entitled fbr extension ol- time as contemplated under Clause No. l7-A(iii) of the GCC. Respondents are trying to call the tenders lor the same work.

¶462

xii) Reliancc was placed on Radhey Shyam Pandey V. Union of Indiar, to contend that this Court can exercise the extraordinary^j urisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in tender matter where there is lack of transparency, violation or procedure contemplated etc.

¶463

xiii) With the said submissions, the petitioner sought to allow these writ petitions.

¶464

CONTENI'IONS OF RESPONDENTS:-

¶465

i) Level crossings (Manr.rned/Unmanned) have been provided at various places over Indian Railways for safe passing of pedestrians, two wheelers, four wheelers Vehicles etc., across Railway Track to avoid untoward incidents/accidents at level crossings and save lives of the public as well as huge loss for the public vehicles as well as for the Railways. Whenever such incidents occurred the Railways are paying huge compensation to the family of victims and facing public criticism also. It is resulting in sorrow situation to the lamily when their near/dear relatives including their children die in an accident occurring at Level crossing Gates.

¶466

'SCC online Cal.683

¶467

¶468

ii) In order to avert the above^{incidents in future, it hasbeen} dccided to elinlinate^{nlantlcd /unmannedLevelcrossings} throughout InCian^{Railrvays and construct Road Under Bridges} (RUBs) in lace of level crossings in phased manner^duly investing huge funds. These R.UBs are^{very useful for passage} of pedestrians, two wheeler vehicles,^{four wheeler vehicles} etc., so that they can cross track^{with utmost safety.Under the} said policy, the railways planned to eliminate^{level crossings} No. 99 in Guntakal Division and tenders were submitted from the petitioner.

¶469

iii) As per the etigibitity criteria and experience, the contract was awarded to the petitioner to complete the works within a period ofone year. Though about 07 months period is lapsed, the petitioner company has not commenced the work. As per LOAs issued to the petitioner, the contract agency should commence the work within 15 days duly mobilizing their infrastructure, skilled/unskilled men and materials required at respective locations and consult the Engineer - in - Charges at site, Assistant Divisional Engineer, Rajampet, South Central Railway and Senior Section Engineer (Works), Nandaluru, South Central Railway.

¶470

iu) The said delay seriously effected running of trains in view of safety for Railways in particular and travelling public in general. Hence, the Railways had no option except to terminate the above contract rvork entrusted to the petitioner duly following issue of 07 days notice initially, 48 hours

¶471

¶472

notice, subsequently the contracts were telminated and the Perfbrmance Guarantee amounts were forfeited as per terms and condition of Tenders and GCC.

¶473

v) Alt the notices have been sent to the petitioner ID in Indian Railway - Work Contract Management System (tR - ,1CMS) (Online platform for making agreements, recording bills, paying bills, granting extension of currency, issuing ndtices etc.). The petitioner having participated in the tender and after getting LOAs is supposed to get all the arrangements, bills, variation, currency extensions, etc., in Railway - Works Contract Management System. The maintenance ol their account, comectnesss of information being lumished is their responsibility and As per Clause No.6 of the Annexure - V of General Conditions ol Contract (GCC) submitted by the Tenderer at the time of participation in the said tender.

¶474

vi) For preparation of any agreement, Performance Guarantee (PG) equivatent to 3% of the contract value has to be submitted within 2l days from the date of issue of LOA. Penal interest of l2o/o per annum shall be charged for the delay beyond 2i days, i.e., lrom 22nd day after the date of issue of LOA. The petitioner did not submit the penal interest so that agreement preparation work could not be started.

¶475

vii) Though requested, the petitioner did not submit the corrected copy of the Thrust - Bed drawing and take no initiative to start the work rvith available check print approved drawing. Until

¶476

¶477

the date oltermination, the agency^{has not appointedany civil} engineering graduate lcr supervision of^{the work,no} laboratory for concrete testing, no^site office^{for keeping} records was set up, mobilized no resources^{for takingup the} work, no design mix of concrete based on which concrete 'work could have been^{permittedin violationof Clause12 of} work contract fumished in I'laster Docutnent.

¶478

viii) The petitioner had submitted thrust bed drawings with a lefter dated 27-08-2021 and in the rneanwhile started the work of excavation on 27-09-2021. The CP drarving of thrust bed was approved on 20-10-2A21 and the work ol thrust bed casting was also taken up. The agency submitted the corrected copy of the CP approved drawing only on 06-01-2022 more than two and a half months later during which the work was going on, which is clear that the petitioner is aware that the work is taken up and done on the basis of CP approved drawing in general parlance) and PT approved drawing is just a formal approval given with correction advised in the initial approved drawing.

¶479

ix) The check print approved General Arrangement Drawing was handed over to the petitioner and he has thrust bed drawing on 07-03-2022 with a letter dated 05-03-2022 and was given initial approval of 28-03-2022, during which time, the petitioner could have initiated the work by setting up the site office, site lab, appointing a graduate engineer for supervision of the work, submitting design mix for doing concrete, and

¶480

i.l

¶481

mobilizine tnen as wcll as material resources. No work was initiated by the petitioner.

¶482

x) The issue ol providing altemative reinforcement design in place of 28 mm bars does not arise as the agency took no initiative to take up the work. 28 mm reinforcement bar is available in the market and the same is being brought by other contractors lor similar work. However, for another wor! an alternative solution was given. The problem of 28 mm bar is irrelevant as the use ol these bars will come only after approximately 3 months of starting the work.

¶483

xi) Railways have terminated all the 10 contracts of Petitioner only after patiently waiting for about 07 months to^get all the works conrmenced and show good progress. The Petitioner failed to commence any work and there was urgency to get the works done in view of safety of the Railway in particular lor travelling public across Level crossing. Therefore, the respondents Railways have terminated contracts of Petitioner and encashed Bank Guarantees as per Clause 9 (l) in Page No. 46 & 47 of tender booklet. In as much as the contracts were terminated the Performance Guarantee amounts, which are in the form ofBank Guarantee have been encashed with the Bank authorities as per condition vide clause 9(B) in page 47 of Tender Booklet.

¶484

xii) The petitioner representatives are threatening the administration that they will commit suicide and take adverse steps and thus pressurizirrg to revoke the contract. This kind of

¶485

¶486

statement is a direct lhreat to the^{adrninistrationand the} officers and it is very likely that the^{petitioner may take} vengeance in some another form.

¶487

xiii) With The said contentions, the^{respondents sought to dismiss} the writ petitions.

¶488

REPLY BY Tt{E, PE'll'llONER l'O^'fIIE COUN]'I]R Ol' IIill RESPONDENTS RAILWAYS^:

¶489

i) The delay is caused purel;v due to default on the part of respondent No. I to 6 in approving Thrust Bed drawings and in signing the contract agreement despite requesting lor the same through letters dated 06-01-2022, 04-03-2022, 07-042022, ll-04-2022, and 06-05-2022. No notices were issued by the respondents through IR-WCMS till date the said online platform is not working as such the question ol sending the notices through the same does not arise, and the petitioner came to know about the termination of contract through its bank letter No. TIL HYD:ADV:2022-2022 dated 09-05-2022 after termination of contract and after enchashment of Rs. 1,78,93,633/- Bank guarantee.

¶490

ii) Clause No. 4 of General Obligations in GCC species the mode of communication that all notices, communications, reference and complaints made by the Railway of the [,ngineer or the Engineers representative or the contractor inter-se conceming the work shall be in writing or email on registered email ids and no notices, communications, reference or complaint not in writing or though email, shall be recognized.

¶491

¶492

iii) Even the notices sent through online platform IR-WCMS, shall not be recognized.

¶493

iu) There is no ciause or condition contemplated under GCC as such payment of penal interest is nothing to do with the preparation ol Agreement ol- works. Further the delay in initiation ol' agreement preparation is not due to BG verification, but for the l-aziness of the officers of respondents. The BG would have got verified immediately on its submission like how they enchashed the amount even without veri{ication of its authenticity. The work could not be continued not only due to non - preparation of agreement of works, but also due to non approval of Thrust Bed drawing by respondent and not classilying the altemate steel bars.

¶494

v) The petitioner received GAD drawings from the respondent No. 4 after repeated requests on 03 -12-2021, after receiving the GAD drawing, the petitioner has to design the thrust bed drawing from the designer and has-to proof check the thrust bed drawing f'rom railway approved institutions, the petitioner got the same from JNTU College, Hyderabad and the petitioner had submitted the thrust bed check print drawings to respondent no. 5 on 06-01-2022. Therefore no approval is received by the petitioner till date, much less on02-03-2022.

¶495

vi) Since the very crucial drawing for execution of work is awaited frorn respondent No.4, the work could not be progressed cven though men and material were mobilized at

¶496

¶497

the rvork place by spending huge amounts of moncv.^'l'he appointment ol Cir,il Engineer graduate Mr. Vinay^r,,uas communicated to respondent No.4 dated 23-12-2021 under ack'rowledgement along with willingness of letter ol' Civil Engineer. Photographs fi ied by the petitioner clearly shor.vs a shed is constructed and the required cement was stocked, concrete and steel was procured and PCC for Thrust Bed u,as casted on 02-05-2022.

¶498

vii) As a letter of acceptance itsell was issued on 29-10-2021 , the question of petitioner company submitting thrust bed drawings and starting excavation work on 27 -09-2021 and approval ofCP drawing ofthrust bed on 20-10-2021 does not arise. The petitioner company submitted a check print ol thrust bed drawings on 06-01-2021 I to the respondent No.4 lor their corrections and initial approval, but as on today approval was not accorded.

¶499

viii) As the petitioner failed to submit the performance guarantee within 21 days and with penalty as per clause 16(4)(a) ol GCC, the petitioner paid penalty and the same is allowed under GCC. The payment of penalty is nothing to do with signing of agreement which is still pending as on date ol fiting the present writ petition. Though the letter ol acceptance is symbolic acceptance of work, it is an interim agreement which enables the petitioner company to mobilise the resources by spending huge amourrt of money and claiming bills.

¶500

¶501

ix) The lab tbr concrete tt'sting is concemed, as the approved thrust berl check print drarvings was not issued to the petitioner company. the question o1' lab set up, submission of design mix does not arise. 3 months period taken in excavation work for the bigger box is concerned, it is delayed due to shilting of cables lrom the thrust bed location, the same is reflected in page 46 of material papers in the writ petition.

¶502

x) Thrust bed check print drawings were submitted to respondent Nos.2 to 6 on 06.01 .2022 b:ut it is false to say that the same was approved on 02-03-2022. The respondents failed to produce an1' piece of paper to substantiate their claim.

¶503

xi) With regard to design mix material of concrete work, the same is submitted by the petitioner basing on which the respondent addressed a letter to Principal ofl Govemment Polytechnic College, Vempalli on 24-12-2021 requesting them to conduct test and submit the design mix material. Pursuant to which the college propose certain design mix through its letter dated22-01-2022. Respondents have to give their approval for the same so as to enable the petitioner company to commence casting of concrete work.

¶504

7. CONTEN I IONS OF TI'lli I{l:SPONDENT NO. 7/BANK:

¶505

i) The issues with regard to the tenders, work contracts and breaches etc., are beyond the knowledge ofthe bank.

¶506

ii) The respondent bank at the request of the petitioner has issued the bank guarantee for Rs. 15,37,352.00 in favour of

¶507

¶508

respondents l{ailways towards performance^guarantee of^the contract awarded to the^petitioner.

¶509

iii) Respondents vide letter no. A-IF)TBILLS/GT/LBG^dated 06-05-2022 invoked l0 Banli Guarantees on behalf of^the petitioner favouring the respondents in respect of l0 different contracts awarded to the petitioner. The respondent bank honoring the said invocation paid to the beneficiary^the amounts guaranteed under these l0 Bank Guarantees.

¶510

i") As per terms agreed under the respective Bank Guarantees^is obliged to honor the invocation and make the payment and this respondent acted in accordance with law and the respondent bank is formal party to the writ aflidavit, wherein the Bank Guarantees have already been invoked and paid to the beneficiary.

¶511

wP12758212022:

¶512

Tender Contract	(i)Secunderabad-DhonestationThrough Formation Treatment(TFTR) fora lengthof l2Kms(ii)Mudkled-Secunderabad station -^{Through Formation Treatment (TF1'R) fora} Iengthof5.70Kms"videtenderNo-38 DMR*W_HYB_O.
Tender value	Rs.8,54,34,933.761
Agreement details of Works	AgreementNo.03/DEN/Lines/HYDdated 04-06-2018
Tenure	l2months(03-06-2019) Butextended7times, onceforevery 6 monthstill 28-09-2022 I
7daysnotice	04-04-2022 I
48 hours notice	20-0s-2022 I
Termination Notice	2t-06-2022
DetailsofFixedDeposits forfeitedand encashed I I	Fixed DepositReceiptNo.516476 dated30- 07-2021forRs.14,91,71I and FixedDeposit ReceiptNo.516477dated30-07-2021lorRs. 10,71,318/- totalingroRs.25,63.0491

¶513

¶514

CONIENfIO.lSOlr IIll- I'EII'llONEt{ :

¶515

i) The petitioner was thc successful bidder in the open tenders for the work "(i) Secunderabad - Dhone station - Through Formation Treatment (TFTR) for a length of 12 Kms (ii) Mudkhed - Secunderabad station - Through Formation Treatment (TFTR) tbr a length of 5.70 Kms".

¶516

ii) Pursuant to the agreement of works dated 04-06-2018, the petitioner submitted Perlormance Guarantee in the form of aforesaid Fixed Deposits in lavour of respondent railways.

¶517

iii) As per the agreement ol works the entire works shall be completed on or before 0l-04-2019.

¶518

iu) Time lor completion of rvorks was extended from time to time under Clause No. l7^(AXii) of GCC, finally it was extended from 0l -10-2021 to 28-09-2022 without any penalty.

¶519

v) While the work is in progress and completed to the extent of 49Yo, the respondents Railways issued 7 days notice on 04-04-2022 ol termination of contract under Clause No. 62 of the GCC.

¶520

vi) The petitioner replied on 07-04-2022 explaining the reasons for slorv progress rvhich are beyond his control including Covid - l9 pandemic as applying /o rce majeure clause as per the office memorandum issued by Ministry of Finance, Goverrunent of India on 25-06-2020 which was duly received by the respondents.

¶521

¶522

vii) Without considering his repty^{daled07-04-2022, respondents} Railways further issued 48^{hours noticedated} 20-05-2022 to terminate the contract,^{lor which the petitioner} replied on 24-05-2022 stating^{that the petitionerhasalready} completed 49Yo of rvork and that the work stalled^{due to} approval of morant sample test report by the respondents^and work will be commenced as soon as the moram test resqlt^is received from the respondents and the said reply is received by the respondents.

¶523

viii) In spite olthe above reasons, the respondents Railways issued the termination notice on 2l -06-2022, rescinding the contract. The respondents cannot terminate the contracts and cannot forfeit the bank guarantee unilaterally and in contravention of Clause No. 62 of GCC.

¶524

ix) The respondents having extended time to time for completion of works till dated 28-09-2022 and having not approved the moram test report as on date, cannot unilaterally determine the contract and forfeit the bank guarantee.

¶525

x) An amount of Rs.39,13,367l- is deducted from the bills of the petitioner by respondents towards security deposit, lurther an amount of Rs.3,53,380/- towards Eamest Money Deposit is lying with the respondents which is to be refunded on completion of works.

¶526

xi) In pursuance of the termination of contract, the respondents are contemplating to encash the bank guarantee from the Bank.

¶527

¶528

Il the sarne is enchased. the petitioner would suller irreparable loss and injury.

¶529

xii) The action ol respondent Railways in not considering the petitioners replies dated 17-04-2022 and dated 24-05-2022 and not completing the m.rram test and straight away terminating the contract and forleiting the performance guarantee money, is illegal.

¶530

CONTEN |IONS OF^'l III I{ESPONDEN'I RAILWAYS:-

¶531

i) No suit/writ petition shall be initiated against the Govemment or public officer in respect ofany act purporting to be done by such offioer in his officiat capacity, the authority to be named as respondent in case of writ petition against the Central Government where it relates to Railways is the Union of India represented by the General Manager of that Railway in terms of Section 79 of CPC, 1908. The respondent No. I is represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railways is not a necessary party and misjoinder since no relief is demanded liom l'' respondent.

¶532

ii) The respondent raihvavs followed the procedure laid down in GCC and the petitiorrer has not completed the works as per the terms and conditions of the contract agreement. The respondents Railways terminated the contract and forleited performance guaranree/security deposit of Rs. 25,63,049/-.

¶533

¶534

iii) The perlornrancc^{guaranteehas to be submittedwithin 30 days} from the issue ol l-OA i.e.,0l-05-2018.^Howeverthe petitioner has submitted on 2l-05-2018'i.e., 20 days^{after the} due date.

¶535

iv) The petitioner without completing thc^work in^{the stipulated} time limit ol l2 months i.e. by 0l-04-2019, sought extensions and the same was extended.

¶536

v) As per the terms and conditions of the Contract, the^petitioner has not completed the work within stipulated time and has completed only 2.620/o of the total work as on 01-04-2019 and though the petitioner was given umpteen number of opportunities to carry out the work, the petitioner did not show any interest to complete the work. As per Clause 62 of GCC,7 day's notice was issued on 04-04-2022 for which the petitioner replied stating rea-sons for delay as Covid -19, no proper approach roads to the site, heavy water logging at quarry area due to Srisailam Dam back waters, testing results of moram was received etc.

¶537

vi) The contract commenced on 02-04-2018, two years prior to COVID - l9 and he completed only 49oh of work.

¶538

vii) The contention of the petitioner that the work is stalled due to pendency of moram sample test report by the respondents is baseless. The sample was sent to laboratory for testing and the same was failed on 09-06-2022. The petitioner failed put

¶539

)

¶540

efforts to bring suitable moram and the contract was terminated on 2 I -06-2012

¶541

viii) Only 49% of the total work is completed between 02-04-2018 to 20-06-2022 lor more than 4 years.

¶542

ix) 48 hours notice issued on 20-05-2022, as there was no progress in the work and the, contract was terminated o4 2l06-2022.

¶543

IO. CONTENTI0NS OF THE RTSPONDENT BANK:

¶544

i) Fixed Deposit No. FDR No. 516476 dated 30-07-2021 favouring SR.DFM. SC Railway, Hyderabad Division A/c. Kanamarlapudi Chandra Shekhar, Singarayakonda, an amount of Rs. 14,91,711.00^(Rupees Fourteen l-akhs Ninety One Thousand and Eleven Only) for period of one year, payable with interest @ 5.25% annualized, maturity value Rs. I 5, 70,03 I (Rupees Fifteen l-akhs Seventy Thousand and Thirty One Only) and is due on 30-07 -2022.

¶545

iD Fixed Deposit No. FDR No. 516477 dated 30-07-2021 favouring SR.DFM. SC Railway, Hyderabad Division A"/c. Kanamarlapudi Chandra Shekhar, Singarayakonda, an amount of Rs. 10,71,338.00 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seventy One Thousand and Three l-Iundred and Thiny Eight Only) for period of one year, payable with interest @ 5.25% annualized, maturity value Rs. I I , 27 ,5871- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twenty

¶546

¶547

Seven Thousand Pive^{Hundreri and Eighty Seven Only) andis} due on 30-07-2022.

¶548

iii) The bank shall abide by the orders olthe^{Court for paymentol} above referred fixed deposits.

¶549

FINDINGS OF Tt{E COLIRT:-

¶550

Il. The above lacts would reveal that Level Crossings (Mannned/Unmanned) have been provided at various places over Indian Railways for safe passing of pedestrians, two wheelers, four wheelers Vehicles etc., across Raiiway Track. Respondents in order to avoid many untoward incidents/accidents at level crossings, loss of lives and huge loss for the public vehicles as well as for the Railways and to avoid payment of huge compensation to the l'amily of victims and avoid public criticism also, it has decided to eliminate manned,/unmanned Level crossings throughout Indian Railways and construct Road Under Bridges (RUBs) in the place of level crossings in phased manner duly investing huge funds. These RUBs are very useful for passage of pedestrians, two wheeler vehicles, four wheeler vehicles etc., so that they can cross track with utmost safety.

¶551

In terms of the aforesaid decision, the respondents Railways have issued open tenders, for the purpose of elimination of level

¶552

l 5

¶553

crossirrgs in Guntakal [)ivision.^'l'he details ol which are specifically mentioned in the above tabu lar tbrms

¶554

I 3. As per the afbresaid LOAs/Contract Agreement, the petitioners being the successful bidders shall complete the work within 12 months considering cenain aspects as specified in the aloresaid LOAs/Contract Agreement viz:- date of commencement of r.york, lurnishing of performance Bank Guarantee, payment of penal interest lor the delay caused in fumishing performance Bank Guarantee, submission of thrusts bed drawings, approval of the same, Ceneral Inspection, 7 days notice, 48 hours notice, force majeure and arbitration etc.

¶555

In all the uforesaid LOAs/Contract Agreement and LOAs, the petitioners being successful bidders have commenced work within 15 days from the date of the aforesaid Contract Agreement/LOAs. They have to fumish perfonnance guarantee within 60 days from the date of LOAs/Contract Agreement^(30days+ 30days)

¶556

It is trite to note that both the petitioners and respondents Railways have to lbltow GCC.^'fhe aforesaid GCC deals with the extension of time, penalty, furnishing of performance Bank Guarantee, issuance of 48 hours and 7 days notice and termination etc.

¶557

¶558

According to the petitioners,^{therervas delay orl the part ol the} respondents Railways in approving^{the thrust bed drawings. frnalization} of moram test samptes, there^{r,vasdeiay on the part olthepetitionersdue} to Srisailam back rvaters issue and aiso non^{availability of alternate stcel} bars due to COVID- 19. According to the^petitioners, there is^{no delay on} their part. Without considering the said lacts and without considering the representations submitted by the petiiioners, without follora'ing the procedure laid down under the afcresaid l-OAs/Contract Agreement, the GCC, respondents have tenainated the cc'ntracts illegail,v by encashing the performance Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioneis I'hey have issued tender notice re-tendering the aforesaid works. Therefore, the present writ petitions.

¶559

1 7. Whereas, according to respondents-Railu,ays, the petiticners faited to commence the works and complete the same within stipulated time. They have failed to fumish the perlormance Bank Guarantee within the aforesaid timelines mentioned in LOAs/Contract Agreement and also penal interest. The thrust bed drawings were not approved by the respondents in time and in fact the petitioner submitted the same with a delay. Srisailam Dam water issue and non-availability of altemate steel bards are nothing to do rvith the commencement and completion of

¶560

l '1

¶561

u,ork b), the petitioners 'l here rierc no restrictions dut- to COVIT)-19 during the relevant period. Therc *,as delay in entering into agreements due to delay in lirmishing of tlie performance Bank Guarantee and pa),ment^p{' penal interest by the pctitioners. However entering into agreements is only formal and the petitioners have to commence work within 1 5 days from the date of LOAs and complete the same within 12 months- Flaving agreed. the petitioners failed to commencc and cornpletc the aforesaid work within the stipulated period. Despite giving ample opportunity. they have not commenced and completed the work. They hai,e not invoked .force majeure clause. There is an arbitration clause in the agreements and therefore writ petitions are not maintainable. The scope of^judicial review is very limited in contract matters and therefbre, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶562

Itt 7'h responclent Bank filecl counter stating that the petitioners have obtained perfonnance bank guarantee from its bank and on receipt ol letter hom the respondents Railways, the said bank guarantees were encashed. Their role is only a formal

¶563

,l9. The af,oresaid facts would reveal that there is no dispute that the petitioners herein are successfirl bidders in respect of the aforesaid

¶564

¶565

works pursuant to the aloresaid tender notifications.^{-lhc pctitioncr in} W.P.No.27582 of 2022 is successlul bidder in^respect ol l) Secunderabad - Dhone Station^{'fhrouqhl-ormation 'Ircatmenl. ('lI-TR)} lor length of 12 kms, 2) Mudkhed^* Secunderabad Station, TFTR lor^a length of 5.70 kms, vide tender No.03/DEN/Lines/LlYB. An agreement dated 04.06.2018 rvas entered betrveen the petitioner therein and respondents Railways. As per the said agreement, datcd 04.06.2018, the petitioner has to commence the work from A2.04.2018, cornplete the same within l2 months i.e. by 01.04.2019.

¶566

According to the petitioner in W.P.No.27582 of 2022, he has subrnitted performance bank guarantee in the forrn of FDRs dated 30.07.2021. He has paid penalty also in terms of agreement dated 04.06.2018. He has commenced and completed 49% of works. He has submitted representations seeking extension ol time in terms of Clause 17 (A) (iii) of IRGCC seeking extension of tirne by speciftcally mentioning the said reasons. Without considering the said representations, the respondents have issued 7 days notice dated 04.04.2022 and 48 hours notice dated 20.04.2022 in terms of Clause 62 of GCC. The petitioner had submitted explanations to both the said

¶567

l 9

¶568

not r ccs Without considcring thc said explanations, respondent Railways terminated the contract r idc orocecdings dated 21.06.2022.

¶569

According to thc respondents, pursuant to tender notification dated 01.11.2017, tirc petitioner sLrbmitted tender and stood as highest/ successful bidder. Work w,as awarded to the petitioner on 02.04.2018 by way of contract agreement dated 04.06.20 18 entered between the petitioner and responrlc'nts on specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. As per the Contract Agreement, the petitioner has to complete the work within l2 rronths i.e. br' 0l .04.2019. The petitioner has to fumish performance bank guarantce within 30 days from the date of issuance of Contract Agreemcnt. However, he has submitted performance guarantec on 21.05.2018 i.e.20 days after the due date. Therefole, there u,as dela1, in execution ofagreement dated 04.06.2018.

¶570

The petitioner submitted a letter stating that 80% of blanketing material rvas collected along the track and remaining balance work is in progress by mentioning that the delay was due to seeking permission from the State Government officials of Maharashtra for transportation of blanketing material. He has requested to extend the contract lor anothcr six months i.e. upto 01.10.2019. After collecting the blanketing material, the petitioner has to carry out other aspects viz:

¶571

,10

¶572

dumping in R.ai hvay iormations in^{layers by any means, spreading,} compaction etc. and^{the aboveworks to be carried out within 12 months} i.e. upto 01.04.2019,|cr a^{total value of Rs.8.5Crores.}

¶573

Respondents have granted 6 extensions^{i.e. First extension: 6} monrhs lrom 01-04-2019 to 0l-10-20i9;^{First Bill :22.36 Lakhs (2.62%} of the total agreement value) dated^{24-07-2019; Second} Bill^: 1,00,55,7141- ( First⁺ Second bills totalling l5%o) dated l3-08-2019; Second extension : 6 months up to 3l-03-2020; Third Bill : 83,28,487/(AIl the three bills totaling 2.06 crores 24%) dated 25-02-2020; Third extension : 6 months up to 30-09-2020 Fourth extension : 6 months up ro 3l-03-2021; Fourth Bill : 97,08,272 (All four bills totals 3.03 crores, equals to 35.5%) dated 2l-05-2020; Fifth BilI : 53,82,255l- ( All the 5 bills totats 3.57 crores, equals to 42oh) dated 05-10-2020; Fifth extension : 6 months up to 30-09-2021; Sixth Bill :23,95,921l- ( All the 6 bills totals to 3.81 crores, equals to 44.6%) dated l2-08-2021;Sixth extension : 6 months up to 28-09-2022; Seventh Bill : 35,32,263l- (All the 7 bitls totals to 4.16 crores, equals to 48.7%) dated 20-10-2021

¶574

Despite granting the albresaid extension and sanction ol bills, the petitioner failed to complete the work. He has made another representation with a request to extend the period upto 31.03.2020 and

¶575

the same was approved on 0l . I 0.1019. Without completing the roral work, the petil.ioner again recluested to extend the currency upto 30.09.2020 and the same was approved on 31.03.2020. Likewise, he sought extension 4'r'time upto 3l .03.2021,5th time upto 30.09.2021 and 6th time upto 28.09.2022, the same were approved. Despite granting the said extensions. the petitioncr failed to complete the entire work. He has completed only 49o/o ol u.ork.^-l hus, according to the respondents, there is abnormal delay ol- Ibul vears irr cornpleting the work by the petitioner. Then they have invoked Clatrse No.62 of GCC and issued 7 days notice on 04.04.2022. The petitioner had submitted his reply dated 07.04.2022 mentioning false and baseless rcas()ns saying that as there was COVIDl9 pandemic situation, there were no proper approach roads to the site, heavy water logging at Lluarry area due to Srisailam Dam back waters, detay in receiving tcst results ol moram etc. Since there was no progress in work, the respondents have issucd 48 hours notice on 20.05.2022 and on considering the fbct that the petitioner failed to complete the total work and completed only 49ok of the work fiom 02.04.2018 to 20.06.2022 i.e. fbr rnore than four vears though contract period was for only l2 months, iespondent have terminated the contract by way of notice dated 2l .06.2022. Ir is irlso specifically contended by the

¶576

¶577

respondents I{ailways that the petitioner requested for- extension cl cunency six rirnes i.e. from 02.04.2019 to 01.10.2019; 02.10.2019 to i1.03.2020; 01.04.2020 to 30.09.2020; 01.10.2020 to 11.03.1021; 01.04.2021 to 30.09.2021 and 01.10.2021 to 28.09.2022. The said extensions were granted. Even then, the petitioner did not cornplete the entire work allotted to him and therefore, they have tenninated the said contract by way ofproceedings dated,21.06.2022 and, forfeited the bank guarantee and security deposit

¶578

It is trite to extract certain clauses of GCC which are relevant

¶579

to the case on hand and the same are extracted below:-

¶580

Clause No. 4^(General Obligations) ol GCC:- Communication To Be in Writ ing: -

¶581

All notices, communications, reference and complaints made by the Railway ofthe Engineer or the Engineers representative or the conlractor inter-se conceming the work shall be in writing or email on regislercd email ids and no notices, communications, reference or complaint not in writing or through email,.shall be recognized"

¶582

Clause l6(4)(a):- The successful bidder shall have to submit a Performance Guarantee (PG) within 30 (thirty) days from the date of issue of Letter Of Acceptance (LOA), Extension of time lor submission of PG beyond 30 (hirty) days and upto 60 days from the date of issue of LOA may be given by the Authority who is competent to sign the contract agreement. However, a penal interest of l5% per annum shall be charged for the delay beyond 30(thirty) days, i.e.. lrom 3l'1 days after the date of issue of LOA. [n case the contractor fails to submit the requisite PG even after 60 days from the date of issue of LOA, the contract shall be terminated duly forleiting UMD and olher dues, if any payable against that contract. The lailcd contractor shall be debaned from participating in re-tender for that rvork.

¶583

Clause l6(4)(at ol CiClC.1020:- lhc successlirl bidder shall have to submit a Performance Guarantec (l'G) within 2l (twenty one days) from the date ol'issuc of l.etter O l'i\cceptance (LOA).....

¶584

Clause l6(4)1et:- the perlbrman.c^(luarantee (PG) shall be released alier physical completion ol the rvork, based on 'completion Certificate' issued by tlle con)pclent authority stating that the contractor has cornpletecl thc uork in all respects satislactory. Thc Security Deposit shall, however hc released only after expiry of the maintenance period and after passjng the final bill based on'No Claim Certificate' from thc contractor.

¶585

Clause No. l7-A (iii):-Extcnsion l-or Delay l)ue To Railways:-

¶586

ln the even! of'failure or dclal h1 the Railway to hand over the Contractor posscssion of the lands necessary lor the execution of the works or to givc the nccessary n()tice to commence the works or as to provide the neccssarv dranings or instruction or any other delay caused by the railrvay due to an) other clause whatsoever, then such failure or delay. shall in no rvav ellcct or vitiate the contract or alter the contract thereof or entitlr the contraclor to danrages or compensation thercfor. but in anr such case. the Railway may grant such extension or extensions ol thc completion date as may be considered reasonable.

¶587

Clause l9 ( l):-Contractor's Undtrstanding:-

¶588

It is understood and agrecd thut the Contractor has, by careful examination, satisfied himsclf as to the nature and location of the work, the conformation of the ground, the character, quality and quantity of the materials to bc cncountered, the character of equipment and facilities needed preliminary to and during the progress of the rvorks, the general and [oca[ conditions, the labour conditions prevailing therein and all other malters which can in any way affect the works under the conlract.

¶589

Clause l9 (2):-Commcncement of Works:-

¶590

The Contractor shall commence the works within l5 days after the receipt by him ol'an order in wririnq to this effect from the Engineer and shall proceed with the sanre rrith due expedition and without delay.

¶591

Clause 22( I ):-Ad herence^'fo Specifications And Drawings:The whole ol'the works shall be crecLrted in perlect conformity with the specifications and drawings ot the contract. Il Contmctor performs any r,",orks in a manncr contrary to the specifications or drawings or any of'then.r and wilhoLrt such reGrence to the Engineer,

¶592

.)+

¶593

he shall bcar all the costs arising or^{ensuing theretiomand shallbe} responsiblc tbr all loss to thc Railway.

¶594

Clause 22(4):- Compliance With Contractor's^{Reqtrest For} Details:-

¶595

Thc Engincer shall lurnish u'ith reasonable^prontptness, after^receipt by him ol the Contractor's request for the same,^additional instructions by mcans oi drawings or otherwise, necessary for^the proper cxecution of the works or any part thereof. All such drawings and instructions shall be consistent with the Contract Documents^and reasonable inlbrable therefrom.

¶596

62.(l ) Dctermination of Contract owing to Default of Contractor:

¶597

If the Contractor should:

¶598

(i) Beconres bankrupt or insolvent. or

¶599

(ii) Make an arrangement for assignment in favour of his creditors, or agree to carry out the contract under a Committee of Inspection of his creditors. or

¶600

(iii) Being a Company or Corporation, go into liquidation (other than a voluntary liquidation for the puqooses of amalgamation or reconstruction). or

¶601

(iv) Have an cxecution lcvied on his goods or propcrty on thc works, or

¶602

(v) Assign the contractor any part thereof otherwise than as provided in Clause 7 of these Conditions, or

¶603

(vi) Abandon the contract, or

¶604

(vii) Persistenlly disregard the instructions of the Engineer, or conlravene any provision ofthe contract, or

¶605

(viii) Fail to adhere to the agreed programme of work by a margin of l0% of the stipulated period, or

¶606

(ix) Fail to Execute the contract documents in terms ofClause 8 ofthe Regulations for Tenders and Contracts.

¶607

(x) Fails to submit the documents pertaining to identity of JV and PAN in terms of Clause l7.ll of Tender Form available in the Regulations lbr Tendcrs and Contracts.

¶608

(xi) Fait to remove materials from the site or to pull down and replace work afler rcceiving lronr the Engineer notice to the effect that the said materials or works have been condemned or rejected under Clause 25 and 27 olthesc Conditions, or

¶609

¶610

(xii) Fail to take steps to employ competent or additional staff and labour as required under Clausc l(r of the Conditions. or

¶611

(xiii) Fail to alford the Iinginecr or Enginecr's representarive proper lacilities lor inspecting rhe works or any pan thereof as required under Clause 28 of the Conditions, or

¶612

(xiv) Promise. offcr or give any bribe. commission, gift or advantage either himself or through his partner. agent or servant to any officer or employee of the Railrvay' or to an! person on his or on their behalf in relation to the execution of tliis or any other contract with this Railway.

¶613

(xv) Fail to adhere to the provisions of Clause 16 of Tender Form (Second Sheet) of Annexure I of l)art I 'Regulations for Tenders and Contract, or provision of abovc C'lause 59(9).

¶614

(xvi) Submits copy of I'ake docunrents/ certilicatcs in support of credentials, submitted by the tendcler.

¶615

l'hen and in an1 ol the said Clause. the Engineer on ol'the Railway may serve the Contractor u,ith a notice^(Proforma at Annexure-IX) in writing to that ellect and if the Contractor does not within scven days after the delivery to him of such n(rtice proceed to make good his default in so far as the sanre is capable of being made good and carry on the work or comply with such directions as aforesaid of the entire satisfaction of the llngineer, the Railrvay shall bc entitled after giving 48 hours' notice (Proforma at Annexure-X or XII, as the case may be) in writing under the hand of the Engineer to rescind the contract as a whole or in part or parts (as may be specified in such notice) and after expiry of 48 hours noticc, a final termination notice (Proforma at Annexure-Xl or XIll. as the case may be) should be issued.

¶616

Note: Engineer at his discretion may resort to the part termination of contract with notices^(Proforma at Annexure- IX, XII and XIII), only in cases where progress of work is more than or equal to 80%o of the original scope of work.

¶617

62.(2) Right of Railway after Rescission of Contract owing to Delault of Contractor: In the event of an1'' or scveral ol'the courses. relerred to in Sub-Clause(l) of this Clause, bcing adopted:

¶618

(a) The Contractor shall have no clairn to compensation for any loss sustained by him by reason ol his having purchased or procured any materials or entered into an) conlrnitnlents or made any advtrnces on account of or with a vieu, to tlrr,. cxecution of the works or the

¶619

l(r

¶620

performance ol'thc contract and Contractoi shall not bc entitlcd to rccovcr or be paid an1" sunr lor any work thcreto lor actuallv performcd under thc contract unless and Lrntil thc Engineer shall have certified the perfonnance ol such v[ork and the value^payable respect thereof and the Contractor shall onl_v- be e'ntitled to be^paid the value so certified

¶621

(b) In the conlract vvhich has been rescinded as a whole, the Security Dcposit alread.v r.r,ith railu,a),s under the contract shall be encashed/ forfeited and the Perlormsnce Guarantee ah'eady submitted for the contract shall be encashed. lhe balanse lvork shall be got done independently without risk & cost of the failed Contractor. The failed Contractor shall be debaned trom participating in the tender for executing the balance work. If the failed Contractor is a JV or a Partnership firm. then every member/partner of such a firm shall be debarred from participating in thc tender for the balance work in his/her individual capacitl' or as a partner ofany other JV ipartnership firm.

¶622

Further the authorizcd reprcsentative of failed Contractor cannot be acccpted as authorized rcprescntati!c in new contract.

¶623

¶624

(i) The full Pcrformance Guarantee for the contract shall be recovered. No additional Perfornrancc Guarantee shall be required for balance of work being executed through the part terminated contract. The contract value of part terminated contract stands reduced to the balance value of work under the contract.

¶625

(ii) The Security Deposit of part terminated contract shall be dealt as per clause l6(2) olGCU.

¶626

(iii) The defaulting Contractor shall not be issued any completion certificate for the contract.

¶627

(iv) The balance work shall be got done independently without risk & cost of the failed Contractor. The failed Contractor shall be debaned from participating in the tender for executing the balance work. Ifthe failed Contractor is a JV or a Partnership firm, then every member/partner of such a firm shall be debaned from pa(icipating in the tender for the balance work in his,/her individual capacity or as a partner olany other JV /partnership firm.

¶628

(v) Further the authorized represenlative of failed Contractor will not be accepted as authorized representative in new contract.

¶629

¶630

(d) The Engineer or the l'ingineer&#391s Representative shall be entitled to takc possession ul ;rnv materials, tools, implements. rnachinerl,and buildings on thr' sorks or on the propeny on ivhich these are being or ought to have bcqn executed, and to rctain and errrploy the same in the further crecution ol the works or anv part thereofuntil the completion ofthe rvorks without the Contractor being entitled to any compensation for the use and employment thereof or lor wear and tear or destruction thereol

¶631

(e) The Engineer shall as soon as may be practicable after removal of the Contractor fix and determir.re ex-parte or by or after reltrence to the parties or after such investigation or enquiries as hc may consider fit.to make or institute and shall certify what amount (if any) had at the time of rescission of the contract been reasonably eamed by or would reasonably accrue to the Contractor in respect of the work then actually done by him under the contract and what was the^value ofany unused. or partiall), used nlatcrials. any constructional plant and any tenlporary works upon thc site. Ihc legitinrate amount due to the Contractor after making necessary deductions and certitied by the Engineer should be released expeditiously.

¶632

As per 19 (l) of GCC, it is understood that a Contractor after

¶633

careful examination o1'the aloresaid parameters has parlicipated in the tender process by way of submitting bid. Therefore, the contractor cannot contend that there was Srisailam back waters issue, pendency of moram test non-availability report, non-availability ofapproach roads to site and non-availability ofl altemati/e steel bars etc. The petitioners have to arrange the same and participate in the tender. Having participated, stood as successful bidder, the petitioner cannot now contend that there was delay in completion of work due to the aforesaid rcasons.

¶634

¶635

As stated supra in^{W.P.No.l7582of 2022, the respondents} authorities have extended the^{period fbr c,onrpletion of works six times} for every six months. Even then^{the petitioner did not completethe} aforesaid work within lour^years and in lact^{he has to complete the work} within 12 months frorn the date ol LOA. He^has not^{fumished the} performance bank guarantee within 30 days and he has^{furnished the} same with detay of 20 days by way olnaying^penalty. As contended by him, the petitioner lailed to establish rcsrictions if any issued by the Central or State Governments due to COVID-19. It is also relevant to note that during the aloresaid perioC, there werc no restrictions imposed either by State or Central Government. Thus, thc petitioner herein failed to complete the aforesaid work either u,ithin l2 months agreed period in the manner stated supra or within the period extended. Even the petitioner failed to explain violation of the procedure if any 1n terminating the contract by the respondent Railways. They have invoked clause No.62 of the GCC, issued 7 days noticc and 48 hours notice belore termination.

¶636

As per clause l9(2) of GCC, the contractor shall commence the work within 1 5 days after the receipt of an order in writing to the said effect from the Engineer and shall proceed with the same with due

¶637

¶638

expedition and without dclay. On consideration of request of thc petitioner only. the iespondents have tenninated the aloresaid Contract Agreement and encashed the bank guarantee and security deposit. 'Iherefore, according to this Court, there is no irregularity in terminating the aforesaid contract by respondent Railways.

¶639

The scope of^judicial re','iew in tender matters and arbitration clauses etc., will be discussed in below mentioned paragraphs along with^judgments relied on by the parlies.

¶640

In the present case, the respondents Railways have extended the period six times in the manner stated supra in terms ol clause l7(Axiii) of GCC. They have invoked Clause No.62 of GCC and terminated the aforesaid contract vide proceedings dated 29.06.2022. There is no irregularity in it. Therefore, the petitioners failed to establish that it rcquircs interf'erence of this Court with the said proceedings. Thus the writ petition vide W.P.No.27 582 of 2022 is liable to be dismissed.

¶641

With regard to the other writ petitions, as discussed supra,^as per LOAs and GCC, the petitioners being the successful bidders, have commenced the work within l5 days from the date of receipt of LOAs. They have to fumish perlormance bank guarantee within sixty days

¶642

¶643

(30+-r0 days) fi'orn the said LOAs. In terms ol'Clause l6(a)(a) olGCC, they have to furnish perlormance bank guarantee^rvithin 30 days and maximurn period is sixty days. 1-he petitioners have not submitted performance bank guarantee within the aforesaid time. In respect of W.P.No.23752 of 2022 petitioner had submitted performance bank guarantee with delay. He had submitted the aforesaid perlormance bank guarantee beyond sixty days with penalty.

¶644

In the counters filed by respondents in thc aloresaid writ petitions, it is specifically mentioned that J'hrust Bed drawings were submitted on 27-08-2021 and in the nreanwhiic startcd the work ol excavation on27-09-2021.'l'he CP dra',ving olthrust bed was approved on 20-10-2021. Thus, there was delay on thc part of the petitioners in fumishing the performance bank guarantee and also penal interest. Though the thrust bed drawings were approved, the petitioners did not commence work and complete the same within 12 months agreed period. Though the LOAs were issued on the aforesaid dates, the petitioners have not commenced work tbr 7 months but there is no explanation much less plausible explanation by the petitioners for noncommencement of the aforesaid work.

¶645

,li

¶646

tt is trite to note that there is provision fbr extension of albresaid period in temrs ol'Clause 17(A)(iii). The petitioner herein did not seek any extension of the aforesaid period. Therefore, the respondents Railrvays invoking Clause 62 of GCC issued had 7 days and 48 hours notices 1o the petitioner l.rerein. But petitioner herein lailed to subrnit any explanation fbr the same. Therefore, respondents left with no other option but to terminate the contract and encash performance bank guarantee except in W.P.No.23752 of 2022. They have also issued tender notiftcation, re-tendering the aloresaid contracts.

¶647

As per Clause l9(1) ol'GCC, the petitioner has to examine itsell before participating in the tcnder process, with regard to location and nature ol work etc., and participation in the tender. Having participated in the tender process, it cannot take the aforesaid reasons r.e as COVID-I9, no proper approach roads to the site, heavy water togging at quarry area due to Srisailam Dam back waters, pending of testing results of moram etc. As discussed supra, during the relevant period, there were no restrictions imposed either by State or Central Government due to COVID- 19.^'[-hrust bed drawings were approved on the aforesaid dates. fhe petitionel cannot contend with regard to nonavailability of the alternate steel bars, moram test approvals etc. If there

¶648

-1:

¶649

is delay in comnrencernent an<i completion ol the rvork, tlie petitioner has to seek extension of period in tenns of clause l7-A(iii) ol CCC. In the present cases, the petitioner failed to seek any extension. The petitior.rer herein failed to satisty this Court with regard to procedural irregularity if any committeci by the respondents Railway in serving 7 days and 48 hours notice.

¶650

It is relevant to note that entire tender process and retendering process, submission ol tender is online through respondent's e-mail ID. The aforesaid notices vr'ere placed in IRWMS site ol the respondent Railways. However, the petitioner herein has f iled copies of Tdays and 48 hours notice. Therefore, petitioner cannot contend that the said notices were not served on him. Therefore, according to this Court, there is no irregularity in terminating the aforesaid contracts by the respondents Railways and forfeiting the bank guarantee.

¶651

As discussed supra, the respondents Railways have taken a decision with regard to construction of RUBs in place of level crossing to avoid accidents and untoward incidents including loss ol lives. They have initiated the aforesaid steps on urgency basis. They have specifically mentioned terms and conditions in the tender notificatior.r and also in the LOAs. The petitioners have not participated in the

¶652

-11

¶653

aloresaid tender process and stoocl as successful bidder, failed to furnish perlormance bank guarantee within time. Despite approval of the aforesaid thnrst bed drawings, the petitioner failed to complete the work. He cannot now corrtend that due to Covid -19 restrictions, non-e:listence of proper approach roads to the site, heavy water togging at quarry area due to Srisailam Dam back waters, non-receipt of test results of moram and non-availability ol alternate steel bars etc, for non completion of work in time. ln tht: LOAs itself, tliere is specific mention with regard to submission ol perlbrmance bank guarantee, payment of penal interest and commencement of work.

¶654

in the I-()As, it is also specifically mentioned that the entire work shall be conrpleted within ll nronths from the date of issuance of LOA and the petitioner was advised that that said tender will constitute assignment of the contract between the petitioner and railways until a formal agreement IS prepared and executed. The petitioner has to commence the work within 15 days from the date of LOA, failing which, the action will be taken as per GCC. It is also specifically mentioned with regarcl to lurnishing of perlormance guarantee as per the clause 9 olthe GC( in the fbrm ol irevocable bank guarantee. Entering into agreement is only forrnal. It is not compulsory. Moreover,

¶655

¶656

execution ol agreclnent v,as delaycd due to delay in furnishing of performance bank guarantee by the pctitioner in terms ol Clause No.9 of GCC. Therelore, the petitioner cannot contend that respondents Railways did not enter into contract with the petitioner. l'he said t-acts were specifically mentioned in the LOAs itself.

¶657

As discussed supra, the petitioner failed to comrnerice and cornplete the work within agreed time of l2 months frorn the date ol LOA. The petitioner failed to commence rvork even alter 7 months though the same is time bound contract. The petitioner faited to consider the nature of work and policy taken by the respondents for construction of RUBs to avoid accidents. As discussed supra, the petitioner herein failed to establish a violation of any procedure by the respondents railways in terminating the contract. Therefore, according to this Cour1. there is no irregularity or illegality in terminating the contract by respondents.

¶658

With regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions. it is relevant to note that though there is an arbitration clause in the contracts, writ petitions are maintainable. The said principle was laid down by

¶659

¶660

Three Judge Bcnclr of the Aper Court in State of UP v. Sudhir Kuma12 and Popatrac Vynkatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtrar.

¶661

In the atbresaid^judgrrent. Apex Court held that the decision in ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of lndia Limited{ cautions that plenary power under Article 226 of the^{('onstitution} o1' India is not excluded in contractual matters. lt must be Lrsed with circurrspection when other remedies have been provided by the contract. But as a statement of principle, the jurisdiction undcr \rticle 226 ol' the Constitution of India is not excluded in contractuai matters. Referring to Article 23.1 of the Development Agree ment therein, the same mandates the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration. However, the presence of an arbitration clause rvithin a contract between a state instrumentality and a private party has not acted as an absolute bar to availing remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the State instrumentality violates its constitr"rtional mandate under Article l4 to act lairly and reasonably, relicf r"rnder the plenary powers of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie.^'fhe said principle was recognized by the'Aper Cor:rr in,\llL International (supra). Thus, the

¶662

']^(2020)SCC ontine SC 847

¶663

'Civil Appeal No.1600 of 2020

¶664

o lzoo+1 :^scc ss:

¶665

-+6

¶666

presence o{'arbitration clausc does oust the^jurisdiction under Article 226 o{i the Constitution of India in all cases through, it still needs to^be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a^public law^remedy can^justifiably be invok-ed.

¶667

In N.G. Projects Limited V Vinod Kumar Jains, the Apex

¶668

Court held as follows:-

¶669

In vicw o{'the above^judgments of this Clourt, the writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to u,hether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not lrave the expe(ise to examine the telms and conditions of the prescnt day econor-rric activities olthe State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be cven more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement ol the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decisionniaking process is altcr complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that tl.re tender has been granted ia a mala fide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but insiead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infiastructure for which the present-day Governments are expected to work.

¶670

5 (2022) 6 SCC 127

¶671

¶672

In National High Specd Rail Corporation Limited V Mnntccarlo Limite dt', the Divisitu Bench of Apex Court held as follor.vs:-

¶673

At thc cost ol repetition. it is r,r he noted that under the contractual obligation, it was nor open lbr the appellant corporation and/even the republic of lndia to deviate from any of the lcnns and conditions ol the loan agreement and/or the decision of JICC/JICA.^'l hclclbre, in the absence of any allegation of malafide/arbitrariness and/ or favoLrritism, we are of the opinion that the high court has committed a gravc crror in interfereing with a conscious decision taken by JIC'C/JICA. which hls been followed by the appellant

¶674

In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited V State of

¶675

KarnatakaT, the Apex Court laid dorvn certain principles with regard to exercise of power by High Court including under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for^judicial revierv and the same are as follows:-

¶676

From the above dccisions, the follorving principles emerge:

¶677

(a) The basic requireinent of'Article 14 is laimess in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair^play. These actions are amenable to the^judicial rtview only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration thc national priorities;

¶678

(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have anl,role to play in this^{processexcept} for striking down such action o1' the executive as is^proved to be arbitrary^or unreasonable. If the Govcrnment acts in conlormity^{withcertain healthy} standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders,ⁱⁿ those circumstances, the interlcrence bv courts is^very limited:

¶679

(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the state authorities

¶680

"2022 6 SCC 40t 1 20t2) 8 SCC 216

¶681

4ti

¶682

unless the action ol the tendcring^{authorityis found to be maliciousand a} misuse of its statutory^{pou,ers. interferenceby courts is not warranted;}

¶683

(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications lor tenders have to be^{laid downto} ensure that the contractor^{has the capacityand the resourcesto successfull)'} exccute the work: and

¶684

(e) If the State or its instrumentalities acr reasonably, fairly and in^public intcrest in arvarding contract, here again, interference by^court is^vcry restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to^carry on^business with the Govcmment.

¶685

Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contraclual mattets. in exercise of power ofjudicial revicw, should^pose to itself the following questions:-

¶686

i) Whether the process adopted or decision rnade by the authority is malr fide^{or intendedin favoursomeonc:or rvhether the orocessadoptedor decision} made is so arbitrary and irrational that the courl can say;' the decision is such that no responsiblc authority acting reasonable and in accordance with relevant Iaw could have reached"? and

¶687

ii) Whcther the public interest is affected?

¶688

Il thc answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no intcrferencc under Article 226 of tlrc Constitution of India.

¶689

Therefore, contention of the respondents that the writ petitions are not

¶690

maintainable is untenable.

¶691

In view of the law laid down'by the Apex Court as stated supra, the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions failed to explain irregularity committed by respondents in terminating the contracts. On the other hand, respondent railways established that there was delay on the part of the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions Itl commencing and completing the work. In W.P.No.27582 of 2022 despite granting six extensions, the petitioner therein failed to complete

¶692

¶693

the work and cven he did not cortrplcrc the work within lour years tiom the date of LOAs. He has complcted only 49ok of work. In other rvrit petitions, the petitioner ihiled to contmence work even after 7 months period from the date of LOA.

¶694

In all the aforesaid contracts, there was delay on the part of the petitioner in fumishing performance bank guarantee. The petitioners in all the aforesaid rvrit petitions tailed to establish any irregularity either procedural or legal including violatiorr ol the procedure laid down under LOA,/Contracl Agreernent and GCC and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any reliel rnuch less relief sought in these writ petitions. Therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed

¶695

In the resrrlt, these writ petitions are dismissed. The interim orders granted by this Court stands vacated.

¶696

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.

¶697

¶698

¶699

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR Gp SECTION OFFICER

¶700

//TRUE COPY//

¶701

To,

¶702

One UU to Sri J Venudhar Reddy Advocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General^(OPUC) J, One to Sri Srinivas chinturu, Advocate(OPUC) 4. One CC to Sri S. Sainathan, Advocate(OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies tMBC M

)t-

HIGH COURT

KL,J

DATED: 1810112023

ltiE S14 14:
(q I E FEB 2M3
t ,:' ,/'

¶708

COMMON ORDER