Bombay High Court
Prudent Epc Private Limited vs Divisional Railway Manager,Mumbai ... on 13 August, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:13403-DB
1-WPL-25996-2024.doc
Pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 25996 OF 2024
Prudent EPC Private Limited .. Petitioner
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager
Mumbai Central Division, Western
Railway & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Mahaling M. Pandarge for petitioner.
Digitally signed
by PRAVIN
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2025.08.13
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
17:38:33 +0530 DATE: 13th AUGUST, 2025 P.C.:
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 1st April, 2024 by which the contract awarded to the petitioner has been terminated and the security deposit is forfeited and performance guarantee is encashed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that petitioner had participated in the tender issued by the Western Railway for operation and maintenance of fire fighting system installed at five locations indicated in the tender document. The petitioner participated in the tender process and was successful bidder. Letter of acceptance dated 21 st April, 2023 was issued in favour of the petitioner. The 1 ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2025 21:56:26 ::: 1-WPL-25996-2024.doc contract period was for 365 days. Petitioner gave a performance guarantee to the tune of 2% of the contract value. The petitioner commenced implementation of the work.
However, the Western Railway was not satisfied with the progress of the work and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 7th March, 2024. Another notice dated 22nd March, 2024 was issued to the petitioner. Ultimately, by order dated 1st April, 2024, the Western Railway has proceeded to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner on the ground of failure to show adequate progress of the work.
3. We have heard Mr. Pandarge, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.
4. Petitioner's contract has been terminated on the ground of failure to complete the work and failure to show adequate progress of the work. Whether the petitioner is responsible for inadequate progress of the work or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contract period was only for one year, which has already expired. Therefore, there is no question of restoration of the work of the petitioner. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to sue the Western Railway for damages. For grant of relief of damages, evidence would be necessary in determining whether petitioner was responsible for unsatisfactory progress of the work or not. That disputed question cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition.
5. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner would be at liberty to exercise such remedy as may be 2 ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2025 21:56:26 ::: 1-WPL-25996-2024.doc available to it in law to challenge the termination of the contract and for recovery of the damages from the respondents.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2025 21:56:26 :::