M/s. Singh Enterprises vs Sough Eastern Railway

Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Counsel for the petitioner does not seek to rely upon the pages pointed out in defect no.4 in W.P.(C) No.2741 of 2015. He submits that name and particular of respondent no.4 have been written in handwriting and that defect may be ignored. In W.P.(C) No.2743 of 2015 counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not seek to rely on the faint pages as pointed out in surviving defect no.5. The said defects are accordingly ignored.

In both the writ petitions similar prayer has been made for directing respondent no.2 and 3 to release payment in terms of contract agreement dated 9th October, 2009 (Annexure-3) and agreement dated 28th February, 2010 (Annexure-3) in the second writ petition. Petitioner had entered into an agreement for excavation of tranches, laying of signatory/power cable, casting of foundation for signal, etc. as per the agreement dated 9th October, 2009 with the respondents-Railway. In the second writ petition the agreement dated 28th February, 2010 was in respect of the provisions of central panel with electronic interlocking as per specification in Chakradharpur Division of South Eastern Railway. Both agreements were in respect of works falling under Chakradharpur Division under South Eastern Railway. Counsel for the petitioner submits that contract value in both the cases was above Rs.1 crore and price variation clause stood applicable as per its term. Petitioner, therefore, approached the respondents as per Annexure-4, 5 and 6 in the first writ petition for release of escalated price and security amount. In the second writ petition also representations at Annexure-4, 5 and 6 of different dates have been enclosed to submit that even after representations being made the respondents have not taken decision on one way or the other.

Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in LPA No.913 of 2015 passed in connection with a matter relating to the benefit of escalation in terms of the agreement and contract policy of Railway being prosecuted by the appellant contractor therein. It is submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioner''s claim in terms of the contract and the price variation clause as the Railways were directed in LPA No.913 of 2015 also by the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents-Railway submits that instructions are not yet received. The claim of the petitioner arises out of an agreement dependent upon determination of question of fact which may be in dispute or depend upon interpretation of the terms and conditions of the agreement itself. However, if the petitioner approaches the respondent-Railway with a proper representation, matter can be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement in question and upon scrutiny of the relevant material facts.

This Court, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction is not required to enter into question relating to payment of contractual dues or a claim of price escalation based on the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority for his claim in relation to price escalation as per the terms and conditions of the contract in question.

Needless to say, as indicated by the learned counsel for the railway also, competent authority of the Railway would consider it in accordance with law and after due scrutiny of relevant material facts within a reasonable time. Let it be made clear that this Court has made no comments on the merits of the case of the parties.

Both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.