AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. N. Deka, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7.
The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the termination notice dated 27.11.2024 by which the contract awarded to the Petitioner vide work order dated 15.12.2022 was terminated at the risk and cost of the Petitioner; for setting aside the communication dated 02.01.2025 issued by the Manager (Commercial), NRL placing the Petitioner in the Holiday List for a period of one year as well as the communication dated 30.05.2025 issued by the Senior Manager, (Production In-House) NRL whereby processing/release of RA Bill No.2 was made contingent upon the adjustment of the alleged recoverable dues towards “risk and cost”. The Petitioner has also sought for a mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith release the admitted dues to the tune of Rs.20,65,231.90p as well as other withheld dues.
This Court duly takes note that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 10.09.2025, the Respondents have duly put in their appearance.
It may not be also out of place to observe that prior to filing the writ petition, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal on 17.01.2025 challenging the order of putting the Petitioner in the Holiday List. In addition to that, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Respondent Authorities to reconsider the termination of the Petitioner with risk and cost.
Insofar as the Appeal filed by the Petitioner on 17.01.2025, an order was passed by the Managing Director dated 24.10.2025 thereby revoking the order dated 02.01.2025 whereby the Petitioner was put in the Holiday List with a specific direction that the Petitioner be deleted from the Holiday Listed contractors displayed on NRL website and internal records. Insofar as the representation submitted for reconsideration of the termination of the Petitioner, the same has not been considered.
It is the opinion of this Court that as the order dated 02.01.2025 whereby the Petitioner was put in the Holiday List no longer survives, there is no requirement of any further entertaining the instant writ petition on the said issue.
This Court also takes note of the challenge to the termination order at the risk and cost of the Petitioner. It is the specific allegation of the Respondents that the Petitioner has not been able to carry out the work even to the extent of 50% resulting in huge losses to the Respondents. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the Petitioner that it is on account of the failure on the part of the Respondents to comply with their contractual obligations, the Petitioner could not carry out the work. These are questions of facts which can only be decided in a forum wherein evidence can be led. This Court also takes note of that there is an arbitration clause whereby such disputes can be resolved.
Considering the above, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:
The challenge to the order dated 02.01.2025 whereby the Petitioner was put in the Holiday List no longer survives in view of the order dated 24.10.2025.
Insofar as the challenge to termination of the contract at the risk and cost of the Petitioner as well as the consequential actions on the part of the Respondents in not releasing the various payments, it is the opinion of this Court that such disputes can be resolved by way of the arbitration clause contained in Clause 8.7.2 of the General Conditions of the Contract. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner is granted the liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for redressal of the Petitioner's grievances as regards the termination of the contract at the risk and cost of the Petitioner and other consequential actions by invoking the arbitration clause as mandated in Clause 8.7.2 of the General Conditions of the Contract.
This Court further observes that this Court having not entertained the disputes pertaining to the termination of the contract at the risk and cost of the Petitioner and other consequential actions on the part of Respondents, the same shall not preclude or prejudice the Petitioner in such arbitration proceedings.