GIRIN DEKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed with a claim for release of a contractual amount in respect of a work done by the petitioners. Since the scope of a writ court in matters of the present nature is limited, this Court would proceed within the parameters laid down by various judicial pronouncements to adjudicate this matter.

(2.) There are two petitioners in this petition. While the petitioner no. 1 is the Proprietor of a proprietorship firm, the petitioner no. 2 is the Firm. The petitioners claim to be manufacturers of quarry materials and other similar materials and also undertake civil engineering projects. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (respondent no. 1) had entered into a contract with M/S Corsan Corviam Constructions S.A. (respondent no. 5). The aforesaid respondent no. 5 (hereinafter referred to as the CCCSA) is a company from Spain which had entered into the aforesaid contract on 19/11/2014. The work was relating to the construction of four laning of Jorhat to Jhanji Sec. of NH 37 in the State of Assam from 453.000 to 491.050 km on Engineering Procurement Contract (EPC). Clause 3.7 (d), (g) and Clauses No. 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.4 of the aforesaid contract dtd. 19/11/2014 provides that the principal Contractor-CCCSA would be entitled to enter into a sub-contract with other Contractors for completion of the said project. It is the case of the petitioners that an agreement was arrived at between the CCCSA and the petitioners regarding sub-contract which was forwarded for examination by the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL). Consequently, the General Manager (Project) of the NHIDCL had issued letters dtd. 11/3/2016, 12/5/2016, 19/10/2016 and 4/11/2016 to the CCCSA whereby, it was informed that the proposal for sub-contract was examined by the NHIDCL which was approved in principle and a length of 482.700+0487.000 for an amount of Rs.27.52 crores; vide letter dtd. 12/5/2016 approval was given for km 482+700k to km 487+000 for Rs.33.35 crores being the cost of 2.88 length of the project; vide letter dtd. 19/10/2016 length of 2.33 km and additional works of Rs.27.00 crores; vide letter dtd. 4/11/2016 the work of 2.33 km as additional works were done and completed by the petitioners. The petitioners claim that all the aforesaid works and additional works were duly approved by the General Manager (Project) NHIDCL on the request of CCCSA and consequently, the works done by the petitioners in terms of the agreement with the CCCSA were approved by the NHIDCL.

(3.) It is further projected that under Clause 2 of the sub-contract agreement dtd. 31/5/2016, a provision is there for consideration of the payments to be made by the Contractor to the Sub-Contractor by which the Sub-Contractor was required to execute the scope of the work as per the General Conditions of Contract (GCC).