TREHAN CONSTRUCTION ENGG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT herein, namely, General Manager, Northern Railway, had issued notice inviting tenders regarding the construction of washable Apron at Platform No. 2 along with the drain between lines No.1 and 2 and through ancillary work in the replacement of washable apron at Jalandhar City station. The petitioner was also one of the bidders who responded to the aforesaid notice.

(2.) AFTER evaluating the bids received by the respondents, the petitioner emerged as successful bidder and was awarded contract vide letter dated 03.08.2009. The work was for an estimated cost of Rs. 1,24,35,962/-. According to the petitioner, after awarding of this work, with an intention to complete the same within the stipulated period, he made all necessary arrangements spending huge amount thereupon. The respondents did not provide complete block at the site where the work was to be executed and which was a fundamental pre-condition and obligation of the respondents. Ultimately, the respondent i.e. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Northern Railway, Jalandhar City wrote a letter dated 01.04.2011 (Annexure P-6) to the Senior DOM, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Ferozepur Cantt. stating that though the work had been awarded to the petitioner on 13.08.2009 but traffic block to execute the work has not been sanctioned till date by the said Division despite regular chasing. The said Division was accordingly requested to sanction traffic block of line No. 2 for 45 days at the earliest to enable the petitioner to execute the work. It was followed by another communication dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure P-7) from the office of Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) Northern Railway, Jalandhar City to the same Senior DOM, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Ferozepur Cantt. In this communication, there is a reference to meeting held between the two authorities on 06.04.2011 wherein after discussion the office of Deputy Chief Engineer (Const.) was told that " no traffic block will be sanctioned for above mentioned work as there is no need of this work by the operating department".

(3.) AS one month period was given for appointment of the Arbitrator and the respondents did not appoint the Arbitrator, the present petition under Section 11 of the Act is filed on 18.11.2011 for appointment of the Arbitrator contending that the respondents have forfeited its right to appoint the Arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause and therefore, it is the Court which has the necessary jurisdiction to appoint the Arbitrator.