Gauhati High Court
M/S. Royal - Cpl (Jv) vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 7 December, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010181592019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5557/2019
M/S. ROYAL - CPL (JV)
GODREJ WATERSIDE BUILDING, TOWER NO.1, 4TH FLOOR NO. 401, PLOT
NO.5, DP BLOCK, SALT LAKE, SECTOR V, KOLKATA (WEST BENGAL)REP.
BY SRI AJAY KUMAR PODDAR, S/O-MAHAVIR PRASAD PODDAR
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPTT OF RAILWAYS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW
DELHI
2:THE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
REP. BY GM/CON
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI- 781011
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER/CON
NF RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI- 781011
4:BHARTIA INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED
201
ARCADE
2ND FLOOR
DR. B BRUAH ROAD
ULUBARI
GHY- 781007
5:PA(JV)
187
MAHASHI DEBENDRA ROAD
KOLKATA- 70000
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A DASGUPTA (SC, N.F. RLY)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
07-12-2022 Heard Shri Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas Shri A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the N. F. Railway.
This Court on 06.01.2022 had recorded the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that no objection was there if the interim order of status quo was vacated. The said submission was made on the sole consideration that the matter was of immense public importance and the petitioner was not seeking to delay the matter.
In view of such vacation of the interim order and the balance work done by a 3rd party, Shri Mannan, the learned counsel submits that there is hardly anything left for adjudication. However, the learned counsel submits that till date the petitioner has not been paid the bill so far as the works done by it pursuant to the tender in question. He further submits that the Bank guarantee deposited by the petitioner for the work in question has not been returned/refunded.
Shri Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel, Railways fairly submits that the aforesaid two matters would be duly considered subject to filing of an application by the petitioner before the appropriate authorities.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has, for all practical purposes, withdrawn the writ petition as the nature of the work is of immense public importance, the writ petition is disposed of with, however, a liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for payment of its due for the works done in terms of the Page No.# 3/3 tender in question and also for return/refund of the Bank guarantee in question.
Let such application be submitted within a period of 15 days from today before the appropriate authority who is said to be the General Manager (Con), N. F. Railways who would consider the same and pass a speaking order within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt. The fact that the writ petitioner has withdrawn the case in the interest of public would be a factor which would be taken into consideration while disposing of the said representation.
Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant