AWLESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 5.11.2001 (Annexure VI to the writ petition) issued by the Chief Engineer/construction/NC, Northern Railway, Headquarters Office, Kashmere Gate, Delhi (respondent No. 3) rescinding the contract and consequential order dated 26.6.2002 (Annexure XII to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction II, Northern Railway, Chandigarh asking the petitioners to deposit Rs. 120.48 lacs towards the railway risk and cost and the letter dated 10.7.2002 (Annexure XIV to the writ petition) issued by the same authority to the General Managers of different Railway Zones throughout the country to withhold payment of dues to the petitioner as he is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 120.48 lacs to the respondents.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. M.S. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable in this Court as the cause of action arose at Chandigarh or at Delhi but not within territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts regarding the present controversy are that the Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction II, Northern Railway, Chandigarh (respondent No. 4) issued an advertisement in various Hindi and English newspapers of the nation inviting tenders of earth-work in filing, construction of all minor bridges within the zone including in Zone No. 7 from Km. 20 to Km. 25 in Punjab area in connection with New E.G. Rail link from Chandigarh to Ludhiana. The petitioner submitted his tender and his tender was accepted on 17.7.2001. Respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 22.10.2001 to the petitioner that even after lapse of three months he has not taken any action to start the work and if he does not start the work within seven days, the contract will be rescinded. Another letter to the same effect was given on 30.10.2001. Respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 5.11.2001 stating that since 48 hours notice had expired and the petitioner having not commenced the work, the contract stands rescinded in terms of Clause 62 of the General Conditions of the Contract. The petitioner submitted a representation 5.11.2001 requesting respondent No. 3 to recall its order dated 5.11.2001. He further made a request to respondent No. 5, the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi for referring the dispute for arbitration.