APHC010197602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA WRIT PETITION Between: 1. OMEGA ELEVATORS, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. M.BHANU KRISHNA, S/O. M.SUDHARSHAN, AGEDY 38 YEARS, OCC OFFICE ASSISTANT AT OMEGA ELEVATORS, HYDERABAD BRANCH, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT, 11, SANJIVBAG SOCIETY, NEW SHAR GUJARAT-380007. 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, VIJAYWADA ELECTRICAL DIVISION, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DRM NEAR RAILWAY STATION, VIJAYAWADA 520001. 3. SR DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, VIJAYWADA ELECTRICAL DIVISION, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DRM OFFICE COMPOUND. NEAR RAILWAY STATION, VIJAYWADA 520001. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. OMKAR D IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 9889/2025 OMEGA ELEVATORS, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. M.BHANU KRISHNA, S/O. M.SUDHARSHAN, AGEDY 38 YEARS, OCC OFFICE ASSISTANT AT OMEGA ELEVATORS, HYDERABAD BRANCH, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT, 11, SANJIVBAG SOCIETY, NEW SHARDA MANDIR RD, PALDI, AHMEDABAD, ...PETITIONER AND UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, VIJAYWADA ELECTRICAL DIVISION, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DRM OFFICE COMPOUND. NEAR RAILWAY STATION, VIJAYAWADA 520001. SR DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, VIJAYWADA ELECTRICAL DIVISION, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DRM OFFICE COMPOUND. NEAR RAILWAY STATION, VIJAYWADA 520001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3328] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA OMEGA ELEVATORS, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. M.BHANU KRISHNA, S/O. M.SUDHARSHAN, AGEDY 38 YEARS, OCC OFFICE ASSISTANT AT OMEGA ELEVATORS, HYDERABAD BRANCH, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT, 11, SANJIVBAG DA MANDIR RD, PALDI, AHMEDABAD, ...PETITIONER UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, VIJAYWADA ELECTRICAL DIVISION, OFFICE COMPOUND. SR DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, VIJAYWADA ELECTRICAL DIVISION, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DRM OFFICE COMPOUND. NEAR RAILWAY SPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G.ARUN SHOWRI(CENTRAL GOVT. COUSEL) The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri D. Harshavardhan, learned Counsel representing Sri D. Omkar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri G.Arun Showri, learned Central Government Counsel. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Proceedings (Termination Advice) issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent Authorities on 07.04.2025 (Ex.P.1). 3. The factual background to this case appears to be that the Writ Petitioner herein has filed W.P.Nos.8109 & 8772 of 2024 seeking certain reliefs in relation to the contract-works that were being executed by the Writ Petitioner. After the matter was heard, both Writ Petitions were dismissed vide Order dated 04.04.2025. However, it took some time for uploading of the common Order dated 04.04.2025. 4. During the interregnum, the Official Respondents herein have issued the Impugned Order passed on 07.04.2025 i.e., within three days from date on which the common Order came to be pronounced on 04.04.2025 in W.P.Nos.8109 & 8772 of 2024. 5. Para Nos.30 & 31 of the common Order passed in W.P.Nos.8109 & 8772 of 2024, dated 04.04.2025 are usefully extracted hereunder: 30. Clause 63 of the General Conditions of the Contract deals with Conciliation of Disputes and according to it, all the disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the contract, whether during the progress of the work or after its completion and whether before or after the determination of the contract, shall be referred by the Contractor to the Chief Engineer or Divisional Railway Manager through Notice of Dispute. Thus, Clause 62 clearly permits the petitioner to seek alternative remedies, 3 including initiating conciliation proceedings to reach an amicable settlement in an independent and impartial manner within the terms of contract. 31. Based on the above considerations, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted the liberty to invoke Clause 63 of the General Conditions of the Contract to pursue alternative remedies, including claims, if any, for completed works and any other claims, such as the encashment of the bank guarantee, if applicable. No costs. 6. The above extract would indicate that the learned Single Judge of this Court had granted liberty to the Writ Petitioner to seek other alternative remedies including initiation of the Arbitration and Conciliation proceedings for reaching an amicable settlement. The Writ Petitioner was also granted liberty to invoke Clause 63 of General Conditions of Contract, inter-alia, with regard to encashment of Bank Guarantee. 7. On 05.05.2025, this Court in the present Writ Petition had passed an Interim Order directing the parties to maintain Status-quo obtaining as on 05.05.2025. 8. The above facts would indicate that though the Common Order in W.P.Nos.8109 & 8772 of 2024 was pronounced on 04.04.2025, even before the full Order came to be uploaded on the website in order to enable the parties to have the full knowledge of the Order, the Official Respondents seems to have issued the Termination Advice (Impugned Order herein) dated 07.04.2025 (Ex.P.1), since they did not have the full knowledge of the content of the common Order dated 04.04.2025. 9. Sri G.Arun Showri, learned Central Government Counsel, would submit that after the common Order came to be passed on 04.04.2025, the Official Respondents have already issued the Tender Notification and had granted contract to third parties and such contract is now under execution. 10. This Court is of the view that the present issue does not involve the issuance of the fresh contract to the third parties. Therefore, this Court would 4 desist from making any observation with regard to grant of independent contract to the third parties. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice could be met by setting aside the Impugned Order dated 07.04.2025 (Ex.P.1), inasmuch as the said Impugned Order had been passed by the Respondent Authorities before they have gained the full knowledge of the content of the common Order passed in W.P.Nos.8109 & 8772 of 2024 dated 04.04.2025. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set aside. 12. Since it has been stated that Clause 63 provides for alternative remedies of Conciliation and Arbitration, the parties are free to explore their own legal avenues. 13. Needless to state that this Order shall not preclude the Writ Petitioner in taking fresh steps. 14. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to direct the Respondent Authorities not to encash the Bank Guarantee for a reasonable time to enable the Petitioner to avail the legal remedies. 15. Having considered the said prayer which is found to be reasonable, there shall be a direction to the Official Respondents not to initiate steps to encash the Bank Guarantee for a period of two (02) weeks from today, if not already encashed. 16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 17. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 17.06.2025 DSV