NIRANJAN LAL AGRAWAL Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interference declined by the learned Single Judge with regard to the prayer raised in the writ petition to cause disbursement of the amount due to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner under a work contract, despite the completion of work to the satisfaction of the Respondent-Company and issuance of Work Completion Certificate and in not causing release of the FDR (Fixed Deposit Receipt) arranged by the Appellant in favour of the Respondent-Company towards 'performance security' forms the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The gist of the factual matrix is that, the Appellant turned to be successful in the tender floated by the Respondent-Company and the work was awarded to him in terms of the tender and agreement executed in this regard. 'Performance security' was to be arranged in the form of Bank Guarantee to the requisite extent and this was arranged by the Appellant through the 4th Respondent by effecting the Fixed Deposit in the prescribed manner (as borne by Annexure P/2) on account of the Appellant, clearly showing the interest of the Respondent therein. The work was admittedly completed within time, to the satisfaction of the Respondent-Company and Annexure P/7 Work Completion Certificate dated 05.07.2016 was issued in this regard. The Appellant submitted the final bill for a sum of Rs.1,03,13,737/- (after giving credit to periodical payments effected by the Respondent), but the same was kept pending by the Respondent-Company in cold storage, which made the Appellant to approach this Court by filing writ petition for immediate interference.

(3.) The factual position as to award of the work and satisfactory completion of the same by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was conceded by the Respondents in the writ petition. It was however pointed out that, when steps were being taken to release the amount, some instructions were obtained from the authorities of the GST/Central Excise Department to withhold the payment including the security deposit, because of the liability to be cleared by the Writ Petitioner to the Government. It was in the said circumstance, that the payments were not effected and the FDR was not caused to be returned/released. It was also pointed out that some other work was also awarded to the Writ Petitioner vide NIT No.SECL/BSP/CMC/17/610, but there was a failure in completing the said work; under which circumstance, the work order was terminated and it was ordered to be re-tendered at the risk and cost to the Writ Petitioner. Action was also being pursued to effect recovery of the alleged loss caused to the Respondent-Company (to an extent of about Rs.6 crores). The Writ Petitioner has challenged the said proceedings by filing some other writ petition, which is stated as pending.