SECL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. NORTHERN RAILWAY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 2 issued a NIT for project work of construction of two lane ROB in lieu of level crossing No. A-66/2 on Jakhal-Dhrui section in district Sangrur. The petitioner participated in the bid and the bid of the petitioner was accepted on 12.12.2012. The petitioner was called upon to submit performance bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 19,50,690/- within 30 days from the date of issuance of the letter and the work has to be completed within a period of 12 months.

(2.) The petitioner submitted the bank guarantee on 10.1.2013. A bar chart was called for from the petitioner by respondent No. 3 for planning and execution of the work prior to that on 17.12.2012. The petitioner has also annexed a letter dated 18.12.2012 of the Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction, Northern Railway to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, specifically mentioning that the petitioner has started the work and the DC should issue instructions to the concerned officials to divert the road traffic so that the work could be executed smoothly. The work programme is stated to have been submitted on 21.12.2012.

(3.) It appears that there was no progress in the work as in terms of letter dated 20.2.2013, the petitioner reminded respondent No. 3 about the traffic diversion issue and the road to be closed alongwith the willingness of the petitioner to commence the work. The other aspect pointed out by the petitioner was that a live electric line of 11 KVA was crossing over the Pier which had to be constructed and thus, the work of pile rig and pile reinforcement cage could not commence and arrangements to remove the power line had to be expedited. The petitioner submitted the designs and thereafter, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner on 8.3.2013 that the agreement for carrying out the work was ready. The petitioner requested for some time to commence the work on account of the closure of the stone quarries and lack of sand availability as material brought by outside transporters was not being permitted to be unloaded by the local contractors, but instead of attending to the request, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner about lack of progress of work on 18.3.2013. Thereafter also there was some exchange of letters but, vide letter dated 17.4.2013, a notice was sent to the petitioner to commence work within seven days. This was followed by a similar notice dated 25.4.2013, which was replied to by the petitioner pointing out the hindrances on account of the over-head wires. The spate of communication continued till 11.5.2013 when a letter was issued by respondent No. 3 rescinding the contract.