Disposed

M/s Swarna Techno Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India

Telangana HC19 Jun 2023WP/41240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that the dispute in the writ petition involved purely contractual issues and disputed questions of fact, making it unsuitable for judicial review under Article 226. Nevertheless, the court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing Respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.09.2022 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of a c

M/s Swarna Techno Constructions Pvt. Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR rHE SI4I.E.O| T.ELANGANA Ar HYDERABAo (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)-^{''.. . . .}

¶4

IMONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHiEE^-

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITroN NO.4 1240 oF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s Swarna Techno Constructions pvt. Ltd., having its office at Swarna Citv Centre. MFC buildinq, near Raitw,y Station eni?arii",', Si"riion Road, Hub --5s0020. Karnataka Reoresenled rry'its Authorilej-iiilril;:'' Sri G. Vivekananda S/o. Aged aboirt or v.ii",'n7". il."r.i.li?lia_+rol3, St. No.1, rarnaka, UE:i.r,!*30:8",

¶10

AND

¶11

...PET|TIoNER

¶12

The Union of rndia. Rep. by the Generar Manager, south centrar Rairway, Rait Nitayam, Secunderdbad'- 500 ori.-^{-' " -"*,'}

¶13

The chief Administrative, officer/construction south centrar Rairway, Rair Nirman Nilayam, Secunderabad _ 50007i^--'- -'

¶14

The Chief Enoineer/Csnslruction/p&S, South Central Railway, Rail Nirman Nilayam, Secu"nderabad - 500071

¶15

The Dy. chief Enqineer/consrruction/NZ-B_ at sc, South centrar Rairway, Near Srikara Hospitals,-secunderabad - 5OOO25^'

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the 3'd respondent which is contrary to the law and consequently direct the respondents to pass orders on the petitioner's letter dated 13.09.2022 in accordance with law.

¶18

IA NO :1O^{F 2022}

¶19

petition under Section^{15.1 cpc praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the^{affidavit fired rn supportof the petition, the High court may be pleased to} dispense^{with the filing of the original order passed by the 3'd respondent vide its} daled^{12109t2O22in lhe interestof justice}

¶20

IA NO: 20F²⁰²²

¶21

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{firedin supportof the petition, the High court may be preasedto} set aside^{the order dated12.09.20 22 passed by the3'd respondent and direct the} respondents^{to pass orders on the petitioner's letter dated 13'09 2022forthwith'} pending disposal^{of the above writ petition'}

¶22

Counsel for^{the Petitioner: SRI CH' RAVINDER}

¶23

Counsel for the^{Respondents: Ms. G' SAMPADA,} S.C. FOR CENTRAL^GOVERNMENT

¶24

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4124O of 2o22

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. G. Sampada, learned Slanding Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted the work of construction of Manoharabad - Kothapa-tli new BG line - proposed construction of Bridge approaches with Reinforced Earth (RE) retaining walls at ROB No.58 at Ch.2O025M and other connected works between Nacharam and Gajwel stations for a contract value of Rs.26,33,83 ,724.O3^ps. with a completion period of srx months. However, for^various reasons, including the alleged failure in handing over the required site work, the contract^work could^{not be completed by} the petitioner and in that respect certain^{disputes arose between} the petitioner and the respondents^{and thereby finally the} petitioner addressed a letter, dated O8.O7.2O22, to the^Chief Engineer/Construction -^{P&S/SC, Rail NirmanNilaya, Souther} Central Railway, Secunderabad,^{respondentNo.3, wherein the} petitioner requested as under:

¶29

" ID view of llrc irbove clLtcidation artd t xltliczrtiotrs, it is oncc iLgain requestcd that the cuncncy of lhe^contlac'l mav be cxlendcd for a p('riod of 12 mor)ths [ron'] tl)e datc^ol' handing over ol clcar sil c lrrr the completlorl o[ c]rtirc work under cLarrse 17A (iii) srrbjcct to compcnsation of losses as pcr the Railway approved rates undcr USSOR 2OI9 b1' adding yearly inflatioD as notified b_y the RLil/StatutorJ' Authority up Io 2022 along with PVC or alternatively closc the contract subject 1o r:or.npensation of losscs up to date for the delay causect on account of the Railways duly releasing the pending brll for the work done up to date, the securitl deposit and othcr legal dues in your custody within 10 days, lailing u,hich wc shall bc constra,incd to take further necessar-,r actron under the provisions o[ larv for the time being in for ce for the rcdrcssal of tht-, issues. Earliesl action in this regard shall be highly appreciated."

¶30

In response thercto, tl-rc respondent authorities addrcssed a letter, dated 72.O9.2O22, requesting the petitioner to honour the contractual commitments and help the Railways for completion of the projcct and assured that all the required assistance as per the cotltractual terms wrll be rendered. In response to the said communication from the respondents, the petitiorrer addressed another letter, dated 13.09.2022, to respondenl. No.3, which reads as under:

¶31

".. Therefore, 1t is once again requested that you take;a decision and pass orders whethcr you close the contract subjcct to release of all legal orders whether you close lhe contract sutrject to release of all lcgal amounts

¶32

¶33

I I

¶34

and disputed claims if any refer to arbitration/if arbirration clause is not applicable allow the contractor to file suit for damages or alternatively enhance the original rates as per the present market rate as mutually agreed and enter into a subsidiary agreement witli fresh terms and conditions. Early reply is solicitated in view of the subject matter posted for hearing on 19.09.2022 before the Hon,ble High Court of Telangana. "

¶35

Thereafter, complaining inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Coutt by filing the present writ petition questioning the letter, dated 12.09.2022, issued by respondent No.3 and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the representation, dated 13.09.2022, submitted by the petitioner.

¶36

\ \

¶37

This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and after having perused the entire material on record, is of the considered view that the clispute involved in the present writ petition is purely contracfual in nature and also involves disputed questions of fact. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the issues/disputes between the petitioner and the respcindents appear to have not been crystallised as on date and the same are still at the stage of correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents.

¶38

-1li

¶39

¶40

In the^{circulnstanccs,tl.lls Courtcleemsit approprialc to direct} the respondents^{tocor-rsider therepresenlation' d:rtcd} |3.og.2022,submitteclbythepetitionerandpassappropriate orders^{thereon in accordancewith law'}

¶41

In the^{Iight of the above' withoutgoing into the merits of} the case,^{the writ petitlonis disposedof directingrespondent} No.3toconsid.ertherepresentationofthepetitioner,dated 13.Og -2022,^{and passappropriate orders thereonin accordance} with law^{and the communicate the decisionto the petitioner} within a^{period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copyo[} this order.^{There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶42

Miscellaneous^{Petitions'ifany' pending inthis writ}

¶43

petition shall^{stand closed}

¶44

Sd/. K. SREERAMA^MURtrHY ASSISTANT REGISJRAR

¶45

//TRUE COPY// \i(, SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

The Chief Engineer/Construction/P&S,^{South Central Railway,Rail Nirman} Nilayam, Secuhderabad^{- 500071}

¶48

One CC to^{SRI CH. RAVINDER,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶49

One CC to^{Ms.G. SAI\iIPADA,SC for CentralGovernment[OPUC]}

¶50

Two CD^CoPies [IP N'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910612023

t u- S TA 14:
o
( (r
.l j,
:
(_) 2 6 J U t'l 2023
'r/
I
t
'...,
ORDER

¶56

WP.No.41240 of²⁰²²

¶57

DTSPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

M/s Swarna Techno Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Swarna Techno Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Ramalakshmi, W/o.Y.S.Brahmam Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary -

Howjekar Anjana Bai Vs Gaikwad Girija Bai

Manda Satyanarayana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Gee Pee Foods Private Limited Vs Micro and Small Enterprises

A. Balchenna Reddy Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited And 2 others

S.Prathap Murthi Vs The Union of India