M/S. SINGH ENTERPRISES, RANCHI Vs. THE SOUGH EASTERN RAILWAY THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, SOUGH EASTERN RAILWAY, KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner does not seek to rely upon the pages pointed out in defect no.4 in W.P.(C) No.2741 of 2015. He submits that name and particular of respondent no.4 have been written in handwriting and that defect may be ignored. In W.P.(C) No.2743 of 2015 counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not seek to rely on the faint pages as pointed out in surviving defect no.5. The said defects are accordingly ignored.

(2.) In both the writ petitions similar prayer has been made for directing respondent no.2 and 3 to release payment in terms of contract agreement dated 9th Oct., 2009 (Annexure-3) and agreement dated 28th Feb., 2010 (Annexure-3) in the second writ petition. Petitioner had entered into an agreement for excavation of tranches, laying of signatory/power cable, casting of foundation for signal, etc. as per the agreement dated 9th Oct., 2009 with the respondents-Railway. In the second writ petition the agreement dated 28th Feb., 2010 was in respect of the provisions of central panel with electronic interlocking as per specification in Chakradharpur Division of South Eastern Railway. Both agreements were in respect of works falling under Chakradharpur Division under South Eastern Railway. Counsel for the petitioner submits that contract value in both the cases was above Rs.1 crore and price variation clause stood applicable as per its term. Petitioner, therefore, approached the respondents as per Annexure-4, 5 and 6 in the first writ petition for release of escalated price and security amount. In the second writ petition also representations at Annexure-4, 5 and 6 of different dates have been enclosed to submit that even after representations being made the respondents have not taken decision on one way or the other.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in LPA No.913 of 2015 passed in connection with a matter relating to the benefit of escalation in terms of the agreement and contract policy of Railway being prosecuted by the appellant contractor therein. It is submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioner's claim in terms of the contract and the price variation clause as the Railways were directed in LPA No.913 of 2015 also by the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court.