Jharkhand High Court
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd ... vs Central Coalfields Ltd Through Its ... on 30 June, 2014
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(C) No.2861 of 2014
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited.............Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Central Coalfields Limited through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Darbhanga House
2. The Director (Tech./Oprn) Central
Coalfields Limited
3. General Manager (CMC), Central
Coalfields Limited
4. General Manager, Dhori Area,
Central Coalfields Limited
5. General Manager (Operations),Dhori Area,
Central Coalfields Limited
6. Project Officer, Kalyani Project, Dhori Area,
Central Coalfields Limited........................ .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S.Majumdar, A.G
For the C.C.L : Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate
02 / 30.6.14. The defect, as per learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has been removed.
Mr. Majumdar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was awarded work for removing over burden earth from a colliery (Kalyani Project) situated at Dhori Area . The petitioner undertook the work and started removing earth. After removal of good quantity of earth, the petitioner intimated it to the authority of the Central Coalfields Limited and requested them to take measurement but they never made any response to those letters. Suddenly, the contract awarded to the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the petitioner in terms of the contract did not remove the earth to the extent which it should have been removed. But those order was passed without taking measurement and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter and thereby the authority has passed the order in violation of the principle of natural justice and hence, this writ application is maintainable in view of the decision rendered in a case of ABL International Limited and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others [(2004) 3 SCC 553].
As against this, Mr.Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the CCL submits that when the petitioner undertook the work and proceeded with the work the petitioner was reminded that he is far behind the target and was asked to keep up pace of the work but they never cared for it and then there was no option left with the authority but to terminate the contract.
At this stage, Mr. Majumdar, learned Senior counsel submits that from the document which has been annexed with the writ application as contained in Annexure 5, it would appear that the authority of the CCL had never taken any measurement of the work which was done by the petitioner. In spite of that, it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner did not lift earth to the extent which he should have done and thereby it does indicate that the order has been passed not in violation of the principle of natural justice but the same also suffers from malafide .
Upon it, Mr. Sen seeks two weeks' time to seek instruction and to file counter affidavit.
As prayed for, let this matter be listed on 16.7.2014. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner regarding imposition of penalty or pursuant to the order of termination of work passed against the petitioner.
(R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/