KUSHALKRTALUKDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, a first class Railway and Government Contractor with a sound financial base for a direction to the Respondent Railway authority-(a) to set aside the letter dated 12.8.98(Annexure-46) by which suggestion was given to withhold Rs. 96,00,000.00 payable to the petitioner against any other contract; (b) to release the said amount of Rs. 96,00,000.00 of CA No. Con/GL/12 dated 21.10.92; (c) to pay the petitioner for the extra work for slewing railway contracts and not to give effect of the Price Variation Clause and to pay compensation for wrongly retaining money and to recover formal rate of recovery of short materials and also to claim penal rate.

(2.) The petitioner was allotted with huge contract work by Respondent Railway uthority vide contract Agreement No. Con GL/12 dated 21.10.92 in connection with Lumding Meter Gauge section of NF. Railway into Broad Gauge as set forth in the Schedule annexed with the Contract Agreement (Annexure-2) and the said work was completed in 1994. The Respondent authority had been paying the bill amount from time to time to the petitioner and as the work was extended beyond 12 months, petitioner prayed for implementation of Price Variation Clause due to inadequate supply of materials and other requisite map, drawing etc. by the Respondents. The petitioner also contended that Respondent Railway used to supply materials to the petitioner, only to extend of requirement i.e 52 kgs-the old rail of 90R rails and that the petitioner also completed the extra work in addition to contract agreement allotted to him by the Respondents and the same was completed duly.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that officially 80% of the measurement was taken in April, 1993 by the Respondent Railway and the balance measurement was taken in May, 1994 and after completion, petitioner had repeatedly requested to the Respondent authority including Respondent No. 7 to receive the surplus release materials(Annexure-27 to 35), but it is alleged, no official of Respondents turned up to receive the same and even no reply was given by Respondent authority to these repeated requests for taking charge of the materials. However, by letter dated 25.11.94 (Annexure- 37) Respondent asked the petitioner to sack the balance quantity of materials so that 'PW 1' can take over materials. Annexure-3 8 is the list of materials wherein in SI. 11,779.30 Rm of 50 kgs rail is shown at site. That by another letter with a list (Annxure-38) Respondent asked the petitioner to return 779.30 Rm 50 kgs. rail and 5644.855 Rm(90R) along with other materials and against these two letters (Annexure-3 7 & 38) petitioner contested the claims (Annexure-3 9) of the Respondent as unjustified and requested the Respondent Deputy Chief Engineer (Constraction) to call a joint meeting inviting concerned officers- like AEN/GC, CPWI and PWI, Mr. Mandal - and his representatives at the earliest to prepare an actual on the spot material statement. It is alleged, this time also no action was taken despite repeated requests.