M/S.Premier Garment Processing v. The Southern Railway,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15272 to 15283 of 2017 W.P.(MD)No.18931 of 2017 M/s.Premier Garment Processing Rep. by its Proprietor, Ibrahim Shah Having Office at No.29 Govindan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
... Petitioner versus
1. The Southern Railway Rep. by its Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer/Madurai Divisional Office, Mechanical Branch, Madurai - 625 016.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Madurai) Southern Railway, Madurai - 625 016.
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for 1/6
the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent herein bearing No.U/M.35/Tender/Misc. Dated 05.07.2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to forthwith pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs.7,23,076/- deducted by way of penalty from the bills of the petitioner for the supply of Bed Roll Kits made in respect of Train No.16713/16714 MS-RMM-MS and Train No. 16733/16734 RMM-OKHA-RMM Express for the period from 01.02.2016 to 31.01.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mahadevan For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Laxman Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings dated 05.07.2017, passed by the first respondent, deducting certain amount as penalty as per the agreement.
2. The petitioner is a Contractor distributing the Bed Roll Kits to the Passengers travelling in A/C coaches of Trains operated by the Souther Railways. While so, the first respondent has passed the 2/6
impugned proceedings dated 05.07.2017 informing that the petitioner has not maintained the contract in a proper manner and therefore, certain amounts have been deducted as per the agreement. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Southern Railway submits that the issue between the petitioner and the respondents is purely contractual in nature and the impugned orders have been passed based on the contract agreement. He further submits that Clause 30 of the agreement provides an arbitration.
5. This Court considered the rival submissions made. 3/6
6. By the orders impugned in these writ petitions, the first respondent has deducted certain amounts as penalty. The impugned orders do not disclose the manner in which, the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the contract. Apparently, it appears that the impugned orders have been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 05.07.2017 passed by the first respondent are set aside and these matters are remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.01.2024 ogy NCC : Yes / No.
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes / No.
4/6
To
1. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer/Madurai Divisional Office, Southern Railway Mechanical Branch, Madurai - 625 016.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Madurai) Southern Railway, Madurai - 625 016.
5/6
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy 23.01.2024 6/6