Kerala High Court
M/S.Perumalil Granite ... vs The General Manager on 26 February, 2021
WP(C).No.2137 OF 2021(N)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.2137 OF 2021(N)
PETITIONER/S:
M/S.PERUMALIL GRANITE CONSTRUCTIONS
ARUNNOOTTIMANGALAM POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686604,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR ALEX P.CYRIAC, AGED
52 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.C.CYRIAC, PERUMALIL HOUSE,
ARUNNOOTTIMANGALAM, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.
S.SHANAVAS KHAN
SMT.S.INDU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS
OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-600003.
2 THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CONSTRUCTION),
SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN,
EGMORE, CHENNAI-600003, IN CHARGE OF CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CONSTRUCTION), SOUTHERN
RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM.
3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER-I (CONSTRUCTION),
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-
682016.
4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682016.
R1-4 BY SRI.P.L.VENU KUMAR, SC, RAILWAYS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.2137 OF 2021(N)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of February 2021
The petitioner is a railway contractor, who was awarded the
work of "Ernakulam Kottayam Section: Proposed Construction of
Road Over Bridge in lieu of LC No.30 at Km 52/600-700 as 1 x
25.00m Span Composite Girder Super Structure between Ettumanoor
and Kottayam Station (Karthas) and Epoxy Phinolic IPN Coating
for bridge no. 353,332,286 and ROB in lieu of LC No.30", based
on which Ext.P2 agreement was executed on 10.02.2020. Petitioner
submits that he has completed all the work except the launching
of girder. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out
that for the purpose of launching girder, sanction is required
from the Commissioner of Railway Safety, as per Section 23 of
Railway Act, 1989 and Chapter 7 of Railways (Opening for Public
Garage for Passengers) Rule 2000. The complaint of the
petitioner is that the respondents are not taking any action for
getting permission from the Commissioner of Railway Safety. The
petitioner has therefore submitted Ext.P3 representation before
the 3rd respondent to expedite the proceedings. The petitioner
pointed out that the period of agreement was only up to
20.08.2020 and that even though the work except the launching of
girder was completed well before that, the agreement was
WP(C).No.2137 OF 2021(N)
extended till 31.03.2021 at the request of the 3rd respondent.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for Railways submits that
Commissioner of Railway Safety, Bangalore who is to accord
sanction for launching girder is under another Ministry. It is
stated that the launching of girder is to be carried out with
acute care and caution as it has to be done in live track
ensuring the safety and security of the passengers and all
concerned and therefore the petitioner cannot insist that
permission has to be granted immediately.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that
tender itself provided for launching of the girder. The tender
was invited on 19.10.2019. Therefore respondents cannot be heard
to contend that sanction would be given in due course or that
petitioner has to wait and has to keep the agreement extended
indefinitely.
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the notice inviting tender issued in 2019 itself
would show that the work tendered was inclusive of the launching
of girder. The respondents who are very well aware of the nature
of the work for which safety measures are required, should have
therefore ascertained the convenience of the CRS.
5. Though sanction from the Commissioner of Railway Safety
is a condition precedent for starting the work in the live
track and it is necessary to ensure the safety and security of
the stake holders petitioner cannot be asked to wait
WP(C).No.2137 OF 2021(N)
indefinitely. It is stated that all other works are over by
20.08.2020.
However the learned Standing Counsel submits that the
petitioner has to submit revised specifications in respect of
each girder in the prescribed format as per the latest circular
issued by the Railways. It is stated that as the petitioner had
submitted it in the pre-revised specifications the same has been
returned and therefore petitioner has to resubmit the same in
the prescribed form. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the same would be submitted in the prescribed
format within a period of one week. On receipt of the same the
3rd respondent shall take expeditious action for getting sanction
from the Commissioner of Railway Safety so as to enable the
petitioner to complete the work if possible before the date of
expiry of the agreement on 31.03.2021 itself and at any rate
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of the judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA
rkc JUDGE
WP(C).No.2137 OF 2021(N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED
21.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF AGREEMENT
NO.02/DCE/ERS/2020 DATED 10.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.09.2020
ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.10.2020
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.01.2021
ISSUED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
