Roy And Roy Construction v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19718 of 2013 ====================================================== Roy and Roy Construction Through Its Managing Director, Ram Ekwal Roy Son Of Late Rajeshwar Roy Resident Of Village - Dilwarpur, P.S. - Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union Of India Through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, Vaishali

2. Principal Chief Engineer (Engineering), E.C. Railway, Hazipur

3. Divisional Railway Manager (Engineering), E.C. Railway, Samastipur

4. Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination), E.C. Railway, Samastipur

5. Assistant Divisional Engineer-Ii, E.C. Railway, Darbhanga

6. Senior Section Engineer Works, E.C. Railway, Darbhanga

7. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, E.C. Railway, Samastipur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satish Chandra Jha-3,Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. W/98/DW-10/W-1/342 dated 28.06.2013 (Annexure-1) whereby and whereunder works contract allowed in favour of the petitioner vide contract agreement no. DRM/TC/497 dated 20.07.20-12 has been cancelled/rescinded by the respondents as well as quashing the consequential letter no. W/98/DW-10/W-1/05 dated 01.06/07.2013 (Annexure-2) by which the security deport amount and performance guarantee amounting to Rs. 2,88,600/- have been forfeited with a direction to encash the

Patna High Court CWJC No.19718 of 2013 dt.17-12-2018 2/2 same and debited in the Railway accunt.

3. At the very outset, this Court takes note that remedy by way of arbitration is available to the petitioner for the relief sought in the writ petition.

4. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause for redressal of its grievances. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

5. It is made clear that in case such an application is filed, the concerned authority would have regard to the present proceeding being pursued by the petitioner while considering any issue relating to condonation of delay, if applicable.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.12.2018 Transmission Date NA