Single-judge High Court dismissed a writ petition and stay application challenging a railway termination notice. The court held disputed contractual facts and existing arbitration proceedings precluded judicial intervention under Article 226.
The writ petition and miscellaneous petitions were dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s6 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI,-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 3536 OF 2023
Between:
M/s MWS- BRP V, Rep by its Authorized Signatory And General Power of Attorney, Sri B.Rajendra Prasad, S/o Gopichandra Rao, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4- 5- 29n5 A Vidya Nagar Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Termination Notice No W Con 148/GNT- GTL/4364/Bal WorksA/r'C- 3 dated 0510912022 as arbitrary illegal and withoutjurisdiction and consequently set aside the same.
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurhstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the Termination Notice No W Con 148iGNT GfLl4364lBal Works / WC 3 dated 0510912022 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.SAI KRISHNA MOHAN RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR
GENERAL OF INDIA
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KI'MAR
WRIT PETITION No.3536 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the: Notice No.W.Con.148 / GNT-GTL / 4364 / Bal.Works I WC-3, dated 05.O9.2022, issued by respondent No.2. 2. The brief lacts that leacl to liling of the pres,:nt Writ Petition are as under:-
In response to a Tender Notification, issued by the respondents through Tender Notice, dated 17.O2 .2027, for the work of "Guntur-Guntakal Sectjon Proposed Double line work betrveen Guntur-Donakonda Stations Constru ction of balance works of station buildings, Relay-cum-tsattery and Generator Rooms, Platforms and other Miscellaneou s rvorks at Munumaka, Santhamagulur, Vella_lacheruvtr, and Savalayapuram Stations (Balance works)", the petitioner submitted its bid and the sarne was accepted and ttre Letter of Acceptance ([or short 'the LOA,), dated Og.O7.2O2l, was issued to the petitioner for the said work for a .ralue of Rs.18,47,13,624.29 ps and the said work was scherluled. to be completecl on or before 07 .OZ .2022 i. e. . i,vi thjn
tI
2
MSK,J wP 3536 2023
twelve (12) months from the date of LOA. However, according to petitioner, during the course of execution of the said work, certain additional works wcre entrusted to the petitioner by the respondents at a distance of about 1OO km away from the original place of work and thereby, the original work could not be completed within time resulting in issuance of a Notice, dated 17.08.2022, urrder Clause 62 of tl:e Standard Genera,l Conditions of the Contract (for short 'the SGCC') proposing to determine the contract. However, the petitioner claims to have submitted a response to the said show-cause notice contending that the petitioner is no way responsible for the delay in completion of the work and owing to the reasons attributable to the respondents, the delay has occurred and as such, he sought for extension of time by submitting va-rious letters, dated O2.O8.2O22, 16.08.2022 artd 17.O8.2O22 to the respondents. But, the respondents, instead of extending the time for completion of the work under the relevant Clauses, issued the impugned notice, dated 05.O9.2022.
.{
3
MSK,J u? 3536 2023
t I
'.x,
is al Arbitration Clause for resolution of the disputesthat arose between the pa-rties to the contract. Further, Iiomthe material placed on record, especially a copy of the Arl:itration O.P. filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act, 1996'l', on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secun<lerabad, it is evident that the petitioner has already invoked the Arbitration Clause contained in Clauses 63 and 6'1 of tle SGCC, as early as in the month of August, 2022. Thr<>lugh the impugned notice, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that the contract agreement No.O9/CAO/C/SC/2021, dated O3.ll.2o2l, stood rescinded in terms of Clause 612 of the SGCC arld the balance work under the said contract will be carried out independently without participation of the petitioner.
I
.,{ ;
4
I
MSK.J wP 3516 2021
cax be decided on appreciation of evidence that may be relied upon by either parties. Whether rescinding of the contract in question by respondent No.2 through the impugned notice is in terms of the contract in question or in violation of thc terms of contract are all the matters that cannot be adjudicated by this Court, as they are all disputed questions of fact.
As a sequel, miscellarreous petitions, pending if any in
this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed. No costs.
SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANTEEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qD SECTION'OFFICER
To
1 9n" Q9to SRI K.SAI KRTSHNAMOHAN RAO, Advocate tOpUCI 2 pry cc_!o sRt GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy SOLtCtTOTt CeNdnnl or rNDrA [OPUC] 3 Two CD Copies PSK, LS
HIGH COURT
DATED:0710612023
ORDER
WP.No.3536 of 2023
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.
fA )2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a contractual termination notice when an effective alternative remedy of arbitration exists?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s MWS- BRP V
The Union of India
The Chief Administrative Officer, Construction South Central Railway Rail
The Chief Engineer/Construction lll/SC
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
