APHC010303662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI fM r. t L I JUrT:' ii po I C?/;' <,/ THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE^ AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAa WRIT APPEAL NO: 728 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in WP No. 8109 of 2024 on the file of the High Court. Between: M/s Omega Elevators, Represented by its Authorized Representative, M.Bhanu Krishna, S/o. M Sudharsahn, Aged about 38 years Office Assistant/ Authorized Representative of Omega Having office at 11, Sanjivbag Society, New Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad - 380007, Gujarat. Occ. Elevators, ...Petitioner AND 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Vijayawada Electrical Division, Rep. by its General Manager, DRM Office Compound, Vijayawada - 520001. Near Railway Station, 3. Sr Divisional Electrical Engineer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Rep. by its General Manager, Compound, Near Railway Station, Vijayawada - 520001. Electrical Division, DRM Office ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dt.04.04.2025 in W.P.No.8109 of 2024, by suspending the operation and implementation of the Termination Advice dated 25.03.2024 issued by the 3RD Respondent, by restraining the Respondents from forfeiting Security Deposit/EMD and encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee, also to restrain the Respondents from awarding the work third party. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI OMKAR D ^ Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) ^ The Court made the following order: to any ■J" - APHC010303662025 Bench Sr.No:-2 [3446] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI •iTi^ WRIT APPEAL NO: 728 of 2025 Omega Elevators ...Appellant Vs. Union Of India and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Advocate for Respondent; Mr. D. Omkar Mr. Mallampalli Srinivas (Central Govt Counsel) CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 26^*^ June 2025 PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ: The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 04.04.2025, passed in W.P. Nos.8109 & 8772 of 2024. The petitioner had challenged inter alia the order, dated 26.03.2024, whereby the contract allotted to the petitioner was terminated. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: 2. The Notice Inviting Tender, dated 24.07.2023, was invited through the e-procurement system of the Indian Railways for design, supply. transportation, erection, testing and commissioning and Annual Maintenance Contract of 22 lifts at various stations and locations for the Vijayawada w 2 HCJ a RRR, J W.A. No:728 of 2025 Division of the Railways. The contract work was valued of Rs.5,68,52,400/-. The petitioner came to be selected as the successful bidder and the work was allotted vide order, dated 08.09.2023, with the face value of Rs.3,65,58,429.60/-. The terms and conditions as contained in the General Conditions of Contract issued by the Railway Board were held applicable for the aforementioned contract as was stated in the tender document. The work allotted was to be completed within nine months from the date of issuance of Letter of Acceptance i.e., on or before 08.06.2024. 3. The case of the petitioner is that even when there was a timeline of nine months fixed up till 08.06.2024 to execute the contract, yet the needful could not be done as the site for installation was not made available on time even when the other milestones as required by the tender documents had been satisfied by the petitioner. The case setup by the petitioner was that the respondents had proceeded arbitrarily to terminate the contract for mala fide reasons with a view to help another party. 4. The stand of the official respondents was that the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of tender documents inasmuch as the petitioner had not deployed a Graduate Engineer to undertakethe work as per para C of the said tender document; that the petitioner had failed to submit the 3 HCJ a RRR, J W.A. No:728 of 2025 detailed timeline schedule for design and completion of various items of work as per para F dealing with scheme of work which was to be done within 21 days from the date of issuance of the Letter of Acceptance; that the petitioner had not furnished the progress report for every fortnight showing the progress of finalization of designs and drawings, materials and equipment, which was required as per para F (scheme of work); and that the petitioner was required to furnish to the engineer every fortnight a progress report showing process of finalization of designs and drawings, materials and equipment received at site which was not done in the present case. The stand of the respondents was that despite several letters having been sent to the petitioner, meetings as were otherwise envisaged in terms of clause 29.7 of the Terms and Conditions of the tender document, were not attended by a senior level person from the contractor side till date. The stand further was that the petitioner was asked to expedite the supply of 16 lifts and to erect the lifts at five locations where the lift shafts were already ready, which however did not elicit any response. The stand of the respondents was that it was only after giving due notice to the petitioner that the order of termination was issued. 5. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact were involved, which require oral and documentary 4 Ilk HCJ a RRR, J W.A. No:728 of 2025^ evidence and, therefore, granted liberty to the petitioner to invoke the remedy as was available in terms of General Conditions of Contract. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the plea, which was otherwise raised before the learned single Judge that there was no lapse on 6. the part of the petitioner in executing the contract and that the delay had occurred on account of the failure of the respondentsto satisfy their part of the contract. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned single Judge cannot be interfered with, as the contract in question is a concluded contract and unless there is a total perversity established on the part of the official respondents in terminating the contract in question, interference is not warranted in the decision of the official 7. respondents. It is not out of place here to mention that this Bench has already taken a view, following various Apex Court judgments, in Braithwaite & Co, Ltd v. Union of lndia\ wherein it was held that while the writ petitions could be entertained even in regard to non-statutory concluded contracts where State is a party, yet the decision would not be interfered with unless the State could be said to have acted unreasonably and the decision was irrational, perverse and unsustainable when tested on the Wednesbury principle. ^ 2024 see Online AP 3956 5 HCJ a RRR, J W.A. No:728 of 2025 The present case, in our opinion, cannot be said to be one where the dedsion of the official respondents to terminate the contract is arbitrary or perverse. 8. Be that as it may, the writ appeal is found to be without any merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Omkar D Advocate [OPUC] ^ 2. One CC to Sri. Mallampalli Srinivas(Central Govt CounseOfOPCTC] 3. Two CD Copies gsc HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 :rbi= AWOSS ORDER WA NO. 728 OF 2025 i v: ^ . Current Section . ^ JUI, 2025 X o C9 DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS