Telangana High Court
M/S. Sanyu Infra Projects Private ... vs The Union Of India And 6 Others on 13 March, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.307 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. J.Venudhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. N.V.R.Rajya Laxmi, learned counsel
representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumari, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
2. It is submitted at the Bar that issue raised in this
appeal is identical to the one raised in Writ Appeal No.276 of
2o23 which was disposed of on 10.03.2023 in the following
terms:
"Heard Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the common
order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge
dismissing writ petition No.23748 of 2022 and batch.
3. The present appeal arises out of writ petition No.23757
of 2022.
2 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.307 of 2023
4. Appellant as the writ petitioner had filed the related
writ petition assailing the action of respondent No.4 in
terminating the contract work awarded to the appellant under
Letter of Acceptance dated 07.10.2021 and consequently,
forfeiting the bank guarantee.
5. Subject matter of the contract relates to construction
of Road under Bridge (RuB). Pursuant to a tender process,
appellant was awarded the contract and in this connection,
Letter of Acceptance was issued on 07.10.2021. Without
entering into the rival contentions, it is seen that there was
delay in the execution of the work. While according to the
appellant, the delay occurred because of respondent No.4 not
taking prompt action in signing the contract agreement and
subsequently in preparing and approving the drawings, on the
other hand, according to the respondents, the delay was
because of the appellant's failure to execute the work in a time
bound manner. Ultimately, respondents issued seven (7) days
notice followed by forty-eight (48) hours notice. It was
thereafter that the contract was terminated by the
respondents.
6. While according to the appellant, no notice was issued
and no hearing was granted to the appellant before
termination of the contract, it is the case of the respondents
that the termination notice was uploaded in the common
portal called Indian Railway- Works Contract Management
System (IRWCMS). After terminating the contract of the
appellant, respondents forfeited the bank guarantee furnished
by the appellant. This led to filing of the writ petition.
3 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.307 of 2023
7. At the initial stage, interim order was passed by the
learned Single Judge directing the respondents not to award
contract for the balance work to third party contractors.
8. Respondents in their vacate stay petition which was
treated as counter affidavit contested the very maintainability
of the writ petition. On merit, it was contended that there was
delay on the part of the appellant in executing the contract
which is of public importance. Therefore, respondents were
compelled to terminate the contract but before doing so,
adequate notice was granted to the appellant.
9. Learned Single Judge held that though there is an
arbitration clause in the contract, yet the writ petition is
maintainable. In support of such conclusion, learned Single
Judge has placed reliance on several decisions of the Supreme
Court. However, learned Single Judge after entertaining the
writ petition as being maintainable went into the merit and
held that appellant had failed to complete the contract work
within the agreed time. On notice, learned Single Judge held
as follows:
35. It is relevant to note that entire tender
process and re-tendering process, submission of tender is
online through respondent's e-mail ID. The aforesaid
notices were placed in IRWMS site of the respondent
Railways. However, the petitioner herein has filed copies
of 7 days and 48 hours notice. Therefore, petitioner
cannot contend that the said notices were not served on
him. Therefore, according to this Court, there is no
irregularity in terminating the aforesaid contracts by the
respondents Railways and forfeiting the bank guarantee.
4 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.307 of 2023
10. Government of India in the Ministry of Railways
(Railway Board) has approved the new Indian Railways
Standard General Conditions of Contract, July 2020. While
Part I thereof lays down Regulations for Tenders and
Contracts, Part II provides for Standard General Conditions of
Contract. Clause 4 of the Standard General Conditions of
Contract reads as follows:
4. Communications to be in writing: All
notices, communications, reference and complaints made
by the Railway or the Engineer or the Engineer's
Representative or the Contractor inter-se concerning the
works shall be in writing or e-mail on registered e-mail
IDs and no notice, communication, reference or
complaint not in writing or through e-mail, shall be
recognized.
11. From the above, it is seen that as per the Standard
General Conditions of Contract all communications are to be
in writing. All notices, communications, reference and
complaints made by the Railways or the Engineer or the
Engineer's Representative or the Contractor inter-se
concerning the works shall be in writing or e-mail on
registered e-mail IDs. No notice, communication, reference or
complaint not in writing or through e-mail shall be recognized.
12. In the writ affidavit, appellant specifically pleaded in
paragraph 7 that while it was waiting for approval of thrust-
bed drawings and alternate solution, it received a call from
respondent No.4 on 02.05.2022 evening that it had been
served with 48 hour notice for several bridges. Appellant had
addressed a letter on 06.05.2022 to respondent No.4 and
questioned illegal termination of contract without notice. In
5 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.307 of 2023
paragraph 10, this was elaborated upon by the appellant by
stating that termination of contract and forfeiture of bank
guarantee was without any notice and hearing and thus being
in violation of the principles of natural justice. Paragraphs 7
and 10 of the writ affidavit of the appellant reads as follows:
7. While we were waiting for approval of Thrust-
bed drawings and for alternate solution for 28mm TMT
steel, we got a call from respondent No.4 on 02.05.2022
evening that we have been served with 48 hour notices
for several bridges. Immediately we addressed a detailed
letter on 06.05.2022 elaborating the entire issue involved
in all the RUB works, and specifically stated that we did
not receive any notice from them since 01.04.2022, much
less 48 hours notice, and requested to revoke the
termination of contract, if initiated.
***
10. I submit that termination of contract
and forfeiture of the BG by the respondent No.5, without
issuing any notice and without any fault on the part of
our company, is totally illegal, arbitrary and high handed
and in violation of principles of natural justice and Article
19(1)(g) of Constitution of India. Due to such forfeiture
and abrupt terminations of contracts, the Company went
to deep financial crisis and unable to pay the vendors
and meet the salaries of the workmen who are already
deployed at the respective work sites and also huge
material procedure at the work sites is at risk.
13. This was contested by the respondents in their
application for vacate stay which was treated as the counter
affidavit by stating as follows:
6 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.307 of 2023
7. In reply to paras 1 to 3 of the petitioner
affidavit filed in support of above writ petition, it is to
submit that all the notices have been sent to the
petitioner ID in Indian Railway - Works Contract
Management System (IR-WCMS) (online platform for
making agreements, recording bills, paying bills, granting
extension of currency, issuing notices, etc.). The
petitioner having participated in the tender and after
getting the Letter of Acceptance is supposed to get all the
agreements, bills, variation, currency extensions, etc., in
Indian Railway - Works Contract Management System.
The maintenance of their account, correctness of
information being furnished is their responsibility and is
as per Clause 6 of Annexure-V of General Conditions of
Contract (GCC) submitted by the Tenderer at the time of
participation in the said tender.
14. From the above, it is seen that stand taken by the
respondents was that all notices were uploaded on IRWCMS
i.e., the online platform. Appellant having participated in the
tender and after obtaining Letter of Acceptance was supposed
to get all agreements, bills, extensions etc., through the
aforesaid online portal; it is the responsibility of the appellant
to obtain such information.
15. Learned Single Judge observed that the termination
notice was placed in the IRWCMS site. Appellant had filed
copies of seven (7) days and forty-eight (48) hours notice which
were issued prior thereto and therefore, appellant cannot
contend that the said notices were not served upon the
appellant. Learned Single Judge held that there was no
irregularity in terminating the aforesaid contract by the
respondents.
7 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.307 of 2023
16. Before we proceed to deal with the above conclusion of
the learned Single Judge, our attention has also been drawn to
clause 64 of the Standard General Conditions of Contract
which provides for arbitration. It is another matter that
learned Single Judge has held the writ petition to be
maintainable notwithstanding availability of the remedy of
arbitration. Having entertained the writ petition, we are of the
view that learned Single Judge instead of entering into the
merit as to the justification for cancellation of contract, ought
to have confined the deliberation to the decision making
process. After all, judicial review is primarily concerned with
the decision making process and not with the decision per se.
If the writ court feels that the decision making process is
vitiated by non-compliance to the procedural requirements
and violation of the principles of natural justice etc., certainly
a writ court would be entitled to entertain a writ petition in
exercise of its power of judicial review notwithstanding
availability of alternative remedy. When clause 4 of the
Standard General Conditions of Contract clearly provides that
all notices, communications etc., should be in writing or on
registered e-mail IDs, it means that the notices would have to
be sent to the affected party in writing or to the registered
e-mail ID of the affected party. Otherwise, clause 4 would have
mentioned that such a notice would be uploaded or posted in
IRWCMS portal. That having not been done, we are of the view
that there is violation of the principles of natural justice
inasmuch as due notice and adequate opportunity of hearing
was not granted to the appellant before cancellation of
contract.
8 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.307 of 2023
17. Having said that we are of the view that appellant
should be relegated to the forum of respondent No.4. Now that
appellant is aware of the reasons for termination of contract,
let the appellant appear before respondent No.4 on 20.03.2023
at 11.00 am whereafter respondent No.4 shall take a fresh
decision in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open.
Needless to say, if the appellant is aggrieved by any decision
that may be taken by respondent No.4, it will be open to the
appellant to avail the remedy as provided in clause 64 of the
Standard General Conditions of Contract.
18. This disposes of the writ appeal. However, there shall
be no order as to costs."
3. In view of above, the present Writ Appeal is also
disposed of by directing the appellant appear before
respondent No.4 on 20.03.2023 at 11.00 A.M. whereafter
respondent No.4 shall take a fresh decision in accordance
with law. All contentions are kept open. Needless to say, if
the appellant is aggrieved by any decision that may be taken
by respondent No.4, it will be open to the appellant to avail
the remedy as provided in Clause 64 of the Standard General
Conditions of Contract. However, there shall be no order as
to costs.
9 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.307 of 2023
4. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
_______________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_______________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 13.03.2023
KL
