LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-528

A DUNSTAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY CHENNAI

Decided On November 19, 2009
A DUNSTAN Appellant
V/S
GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY CHENNAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the tender contract notification no. V/w/tvc/17/2009, dated 12. 10. 2009, with regard to item No. 3 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents, as contemplated under the general conditions of contract.

(2.) THE petitioner had stated that in the year, 2006, the petitioner had participated in the tender offered by the second respondent, vide tender contract notification V/w/tvc/10/06, dated 17. 11. 2006. The petitioner was the successful bidder in the said tender, with regard to item No. 9 of the said notification. Therefore, the petitioner was allotted with the works relating to item No. 9 for the construction of the new running room and the rest room for the railway staff and for carrying out the repairs in respect of the roof of the carriage repairs shed.

(3.) THE petitioner had further stated that as per the Acceptance Letter no. V/w. 496/t. 224/06, dated 16. 4. 2007, the petitioner had started his work. Before the construction work could be started, the place had to be filled up with about 400 loads of sand to raise the area of construction to the ground level. The permission had to be obtained from the Government for the transportation of the sand. Accordingly, a letter had been submitted by the third respondent to the District Collector, Kanyakumari, vide letter no. NCJ. A. 5/g1, dated 1. 6. 2007. As per the agreement signed, on 12. 6. 2007, the contract period was between 16. 4. 2007 and 15. 8. 2007. On 29. 6. 2007, a representation had been submitted by the petitioner, regarding the delay on the part of the respondents in granting the permission to transport the sand to fill up the area of construction. Further, even after repeated requests made by the petitioner, the building plan for the construction of the buildings had not been released, nor was there a proper reply from the respondents. In the meantime, the cost of the materials to be used for the construction works had risen.