IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) r FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NOS: 8109 & 8772 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 8109 OF 2024 Between: M/s Omega Elevators, Rep. by Mr.Prashant Premraj Lohar, Aged 40 Office Assistant, Omega Elevators. Having address at 11, Sanjivbag Society, New Sharda Mandir Rd, Paldi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380007. years ...Petitioner AND 1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. South Central Railway, Vijayawada Electrical Division General Manager, DRM office compound Near Railway Vijayawada 520001. 3. Sr. Divisional. Electrical Engineer, South Central Railway Vijayawada Electrical Division, rep. by its General Manager, DRM office Near Railway Station Vijayawada 520001. rep. by its Station compound ...Respondents 7 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in . the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith 7 the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS quashing and setting aside the 7-day notice dated 27/02/2024,48 hour notice dated 20/03/2023 and termination advice dated 25/03/2024 having reference No.B/E.29/I.EGS/1689 further be pleased to hold and declare that the 7-day notices dated 27/02/2024 and 13/03/2023 ,48 hour notice dated 20/03/2023 termination and and advice dated 25/03/2024 having reference no NO.B/E.29/LEGS/1689. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay the implementation and execution of termination advice dated 25/03/2024 having reference no: No.B/E.29/1 .EGS/1689 and further be pleased to restrain the respondent no 3 from forfeiting the EMD and Bank Gaurantee of the petitioner and further be please to restrain respondent no. 3 from allotting the work of work Design, Supply, transportation, erection, testing, commissioning, and AMC of 22 lifts at various stations/ locations over BZA Division for Amrith Bharat Station Scheme to any other third party pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. writ lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 direct for deletion of Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi from the array of Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI OMKAR D Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL WRIT PETITION NO: 8772 OF 2024 Between: M/s Omega Elevators, Rep. by Mr.Prashant Premraj Lohar, Aged 40 years, Office Assistant, Omega Elevators. Having address at- 11, Sanjivbag Society, New Sharda Mandir Rd, Paldi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380007. ...Petitioner/s 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 Near Railway Station Vijayawada 520001. 3. Sr. Divisional. Electrical Engineer, South Central Railway Vijayawada Electrical Division, rep. by its General Manager, DRM office compound Near Railway Station Vijayawada- 520001. ...Respondent/s Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned E-Tender Document vide Tender No- B-E-29-1- EGS-59-23-24 dated 27.03.2024 with respect to the works which may were f ‘Av j vli 'X ' originally allotted and assigned to the petitioner vide a Letter Of Acceptance(iOA) dated 08/09/2023 and illegally terminating the contract awarded to the petitioner and forfeiting the security deposit amount as well as encashing the performance guarantee of the Petitioner despite the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.8109 of 2024 dated 02.04.2024 as illegal arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequentially quash and set-aside the impugned E-Tender Document vide Tender No, B- E-29-I-EGS-59- 23- 24 dated 27.03.2024. ■'f lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in the impugned E-Tender Document vide Tender No; B-E-29-I-EGS-59-23-24 dated 27.03.2024 further be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.3 from forfeiting the EMD and Bank Gaurantee of the petitioner and further be please to restrain Respondent No.3 from allotting the work of work Design, Supply, transportation, erection, testing, commissioning, and AMC of 22 lifts at various stations/ locations over BZA Division for Amrith Bharat Station Scheme to any other third party pending admission, hearing and disposal of the above writ petition and pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI OMKAR D Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following Common Order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA f WRIT PETITION Nos.8109 & 8772 OF 2024 COMMON ORDER:- 1. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is inter-related, both these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order. W.P.No.8109 of 2024 is taken as a leading case. W.P.No.8109 of 2024 2. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: To issue writ of Mandamus quashing and setting aside the 7- day notice dated 27.02.2024, 48 hour notice dated 20.03.2023 and termination advice dated 25.03.2024 having reference NO.B/E.29/I.EGS/1689 and further to hold and declare that the 7-day notice dated 27.02.2024 and 13.03.2023, 48 hour notice dated 20.03.2023 and termination advice dated 25.03.2024 having reference No.B/E.29/1.EGS/1689. 3. The petitioner has been in the lift/escalator supply and commissioning business for over 40 years, with a turnover exceeding 200 crores. The petitioner regularly accepts orders from government and semi-government 2 W.P.NO.8109&8772 of bodies across India and has been exporting lifts to Asia, Africa, and Europe for over 20 years. The petitioner is CE registered, allowing exports to Europe, and is an "A Class'-Certified electrical contractor with various state PWD \ departments On 24/07/2023, the third respondent issued a tender for the design, 4. supply, and commissioning of 22 lifts. The petitioner’s bid was successful, and the contract was awarded on 08/09/2023. The contract stipulated 9 months period for execution. However, despite this clear stipulation, no formal contract agreement has been signed. After site visits and inspections from October to December 2023, the petitioner submitted the necessary designs and drawings for approval. The third respondent then began issuing notices demanding progress 5. despite the fact that civil construction of lift shafts, which were not the petitioner’s responsibility, were incomplete. The petitioner argued that it could not begin lift installation without these shafts, which were outside its contract scope. On 27/02/2024, the petitioner had responded to a 7-day notice by providing a timeline, but further notices, including a 48-hour notice, were issued without justification. 3 NV,J W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of 2024 ' V*' ' ■ The petitioner claims the third respondent is attempting to terminate the contract unfairly and has colluded with a competitor, LT Elevators. The 6. / petitioner provided the required documentation, including a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) and Bills of Materials (BOM), but despite submitting a detailed timeline by 23/03/2024, the contract was terminated on 26/03/2024 via WhatsApp communication. The petitioner argues that the subject termination is arbitrary, malicious, and against public interest, particularly as the work was nearing execution. The petitioner contends that the termination was motivated by bias and 7. collusion, with the third respondent using a non-relevant station (Palakollu) as a reason for the termination. The petitioner has complied with the tender's requirements and claims that the order of termination was executed without proper consideration or an opportunity for response. The petitioner further asserts that the action violates the principles laid out by the Supreme Court, including the importance of proportionality in forfeiting EMD and debarment. The notices issued to the petitioner were vague and lacked proper justification for contract termination. Respondents filed a counter affidavit denying the material allegations and asserted that the entire tender process, contract extension, bill 8. processing, and release of the Security Deposit (SD) and Performance 4 W.P.NO.8109&8772 of 2^ Guarantee (PG) is carried out online for transparency. The tenders are issued through the Indian Railways E-Procurement System (IREPS), and after the award of the Letter of Acceptance (LOA), the details are moved to the Indian Railway Works Contract Management System (IRWCMS) for further processing. The Petitioner, as the lowest eligible tenderer (L-1), was awarded LOA No. VIJAYAWADA DIVISION-ELECTRICAL/ B-E-29-I-EGS-18-23- 24/01005390086417 dated 08.09.2023, for an amount of Rs. 3,65,58,429.60/- According to the LOA, the Petitioner was required to submit a Performance Guarantee of Rs. 18,27,921.00 within 21 days, extendable to 60 days, with a 12% annual penalty for delays. The Petitioner submitted Irrevocable Bank Guarantee on 03/10/2023, with a 4-day delay, and was asked to provide an amended guarantee, which was submitted on 11/01/2024. The penalty amount of Rs. 2,404/- was paid on 04/03/2024. Delays in the agreement were caused by the Petitioner’s failure to submit the amended 9. an Bank Guarantee and pay the penalty on time. 10. The LOA specifies that the work must be completed within 9 months (by 08/06/2024). However, the Petitioner failed to comply with several contract conditions, including: Failure to deploy a Graduate Engineer as required by Para C of the contract, despite the work exceeding Rs. 2 crores; Failure to submit a detailed timeline schedule for design and completion of work within 5 NV,J W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of 2024 21 days of receiving the LOA; Failure to submit fortnightly progress reports on design, materials, equipment, and work carried out; Late submission of the Power of Attorney for the authorized agent after the work deadline. Additionally, the Petitioner did not attend multiple meetings scheduled by the Respondent on 01/02/2024, 27/02/2024, and 13/03/2024, nor did they respond to requests regarding the action plan and target dates for the installation of 16 lifts. Despite repeated notices, the Petitioner failed to provide the requested information or to attend meetings to discuss the progress. Finally, the Respondent issued a 48-hour notice on 20/03/2024, followed by termination advice on 25/03/2024 and a formal termination notice on 11. 26/03/2024 due to the Petitioner’s non-compliance. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed WP No. 8772 of 2024 before the Flon'ble Court challenging the termination and forfeiture of the Security Deposit and encashment of the Performance Guarantee. However, the E-Tender No. B-E-29-1-EGS-59 -23-24 dated 27/03/2024 was issued before the Court’s order in WP No. 8109 of 2024 dated 02.04.2024 and it was published on the public IREPS portal. Although this Court directed the tendering authority that the tender decision be stalled, it is important to note that the Petitioner’s EMD and Bank Guarantee have not been forfeited yet and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6 W.P.NO.8109& 8772 of 2024 ' V • The petitioner filed reply affidavit on 30.07.2024, stating that, following the Hon'ble Court's order on 02.04.2024 allowing the petitioners to proceed, a 12. \ detailed survey of the sites was conducted, and a report was provided to the respondents for compliance, ensuring the petitioners could execute the contract. The respondents were informed that the tender scope would not begin until the lift shafts were handed over in a condition suitable for installation. Instead of complying, the respondents raised unnecessary technical objections and blamed the petitioners regarding personnel and site drawing approvals. Despite the sites not being ready, the petitioners cautiously decided to dispatch material, but the respondents refused to inspect, preventing the dispatch. The contempt notice and the respondents' reply are annexed and were omitted from the counter-affidavit. By filing an incorrect counter-affidavit, the respondents have committed perjury and obstructed public work, causing potential loss to the public exchequer. The petitioner reserves the right to file a detailed affidavit addressing all statements made by the respondents if necessary. The contents of the counter-affidavit are misleading, as they do not align with the subject matter of the present petition. The petition specifically concerns the petitioner’s grievance that the respondents are unlawfully pressuring the petitioners to execute the contract for lift installation at various railway stations, despite the sites not being ready. At most sites, the lift shafts have not been erected, and ■ ■ 7 NV,J W.P.NO.8109& 8772 of 2024 at sites where they have been made ready, that are not in a condition suitable for installation. Issues include the lack of power supply, incomplete civil work. lift shafts not meeting the tender specifications, or the shafts being positioned in a manner that makes them inaccessible. In light of the above, the petitioner reiterates the prayer made in the writ petition and prays for the petition to be allowed in the interest of justice. 13. The respondents filed rejoinder affidavit dated 23.08.2024.lt is submitted that, in compliance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the terminated contract was revoked following the procedures outlined in the Model Schedule of Powers (MSOP)-2018. The agreement was officially revoked on 14.06.2024, with the completion date set for is 15.08.2024. It is respectfully submitted that the contents of the Reply Affidavit are denied, as they mislead the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. As per the work requirements, the Design of the Lift Shaft, including the General Arrangement Drawings (GAD), was to be prepared and submitted by the Petitioner. These GADs were to be approved internally by the Railways in coordination with the Civil Engineering Department, after which the Civil Engineering Department t would construct the lift shafts as per the approved GADs. However, the Petitioner failed to deploy a qualified Graduate Engineer and an authorized representative, as per the tender conditions, which was specifically highlighted 8 W.P.No.8109 & 8772 0/20^ in the Respondent's reply dated 24.04.2024. Following the notice, the Petitioner submitted details of an authorized person, Mr. Umesh H. Patil 12.06.2024 but later withdrew it. On 01.08.2024, a new authorization was submitted for Mr. Bhanu Krishna, though after the contract's validity period on expired on 08.06.2024. According to the tender conditions, the responsibility of ensuring that the shaft was constructed per the approved GADs lay with the Petitioner's site engineer, who failed to monitor the construction. After the completion of the 5 lift shafts (Anaparthi - 2, Bhimavaram - 3), the Petitioner’s authorized person, is now raising unwarranted claims. It is further submitted that it was the Petitioner’s responsibility to deploy their site engineer during the lift shaft construction. The 5 lift shafts (Anaparthi - 2, Bhimavaram - 3) were ready by 01.02.2024, and the Petitioner could supply the lifts. However, to date, the Petitioner has neither supplied the lift materials nor initiated the erection of lifts. Nowhere in the Writ Petition or the Reply Affidavit has the Petitioner confirmed that the lifts are ready for dispatch. It is also noteworthy that despite the incomplete lift shaft at Rajahmundry, the Petitioner, M/s Omega Elevators, under P.O. No. 65225005105796 dated 02.12.2022, supplied lift materials to Rajahmundry on 13.04.2023-, and 60% payment made for the supply portion. This indicates that the lifts can be supplied without the completed lift shafts. As per the tender conditions, 70% of the payment for the supply portion will be made, with the remaining 30% paid was even 9 NV,J W.P.NO.8109& 8772 of 2024 upon successful installation, testing, and commissioning. If all 16 lift shafts (at the finalized locations) are completed and the Petitioner still fails to supply the lift materials and execute the work, the Respondents will have no recourse to award the contract to another party. The entire project, which includes a 2- year warranty and a subsequent 10-year Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract (CAMC), is at risk due to the Petitioner’s failure to execute the work and respond to multiple notices (dated 01.02.2024, 27.02.2024, 13.03.2024, and 20.03.2024). The Petitioner submitted the Bill of Material (BOM) and Quality Assurance Plan '(QAP) for 5 lifts (Anaparthi - 2, Bhimavaram - 3) for approval on 12.08.2024, and the same was approved on the same day. In compliance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 8109 of 2024 dated 02.04.2024, the E-Tender No. B-E-29-1-EGS-59-23-24, which was published before the court's order, has been stalled and kept aside. This prestigious project, under the Amrit Bharat Scheme, aims to enhance public comfort by installing lifts at various railway stations. 14. The respondents filed additional counter affidavit dated 30.08.2024. It is submitted that, as per the project, the petitioner is required to submit the General Arrangement Drawings (GAD) for the design of the lift shafts. These GADs will be approved internally by the Railways in coordination with the Civil Engineering Department, and the lift shafts will be constructed by the Civil ■- .-s 10 W.P.No.8109 &8772 ofiL Engineering Department based on the approved GADs. Of the eight lifts for ^ which GADs have been approved, shafts have been constructed for five (Anaparthi - 2 lifts, Bhimavaram - 3 lifts), while the construction of lift shafts for the three lifts at Kavali is still in progress. It is submitted that the Civil Engineering Department cannot proceed with the construction of additional shafts until the petitioner submits the lifts lift necessary General Arrangement Drawings. The petitioner was advised by the respondent through letters dated 01.02.24 and 13.03.24, but failed to submit the required GADs for another eight lifts. Contracts for the construction of these shafts have already been awarded, and the contractors are awaiting the submission of the GADs. A standard pit depth of 1.7 meters is required for the construction of lift shafts, and this has been excavated at the other eight locations. This delay in submitting the GADs has caused inconvenience to the public due to the non progress of the work. Regarding the power supply arrangements, the was awarded by the Electrical Department to M/s Ramco contract Engineering Company, Guntur, under LOA No. B-E-29-1-EGS-33-22-23/00176650079080 dated 13/06/2023. The contractor has supplied the materials, and two bills have already been paid as part of the material supply, However, due to delays in the submission of the GADs, both the Civil Engineering Departments' contractors are experiencing difficulties in completing their work. Additionally, the petitioner has failed to deploy a qualified graduate engineer and Electrical 11 NV,J W.P.NO.8109& 8772 of 2024 or an authorized representative as required by the tender conditions. On 01.08.24, a fresh authorization was submitted, after the contract's validity period (08.06.24) had already expired. According to the tender conditions, it is the responsibility of the petitioner's site engineer to ensure that the lift shafts are constructed according to the approved GADs. However, this responsibility has not been properly fulfilled. Following the completion of five lift shafts (Anaparthi - 2 lifts, Bhimavaram - 3 lifts) by 01.02.24, the petitioner has not yet supplied the lift materials or commenced the installation process. Despite this, the petitioner has not confirmed in the writ petition or the reply affidavit that the lifts are ready for dispatch. It is submitted that the petitioner. M/s Omega Elevators, supplied lift materials to Rajahmundry under Purchase Order No. 65225005105796 dated 02.12.2022, with a delivery on 13.04.-23, and 60% payment was made for the supply. This indicates that the lifts can be supplied even without construction of the lift shafts, and 70% payment for the supply portion will be made to the petitioner as per the tender conditions. According to the payment conditions of the tender, 70% of the payment will be arranged for the supply portion, and the remaining 30% will be paid upon successful completion 'of the work, including installation, testing, and commissioning. It is submitted that if all 16 lift shafts (finalized locations) are constructed, but the petitioner fails to supply the lift materials and execute the work, the respondents will have no option but to award a new contract to 12 W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of 2o^ complete the work. The entire project includes a two-year warranty and a 10- year Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract (CAMC), as per the agreement. However, the petitioner has not responded to letters and notices dated 01.02.24, 27.02.24, 13.03.24, and 20.03.24, demonstrating performance. The petitioner submitted the Bill of Material (BOM) and Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) for the five lifts (Anaparthi - 2 lifts, Bhimavaram - 3 lifts) to the respondent on 12.08.2024, which poor was approved on the same day. In compliance with the court order in W.P. No. 8109 of 2024 dated 02.04.2024, the E-Tender No. B-E-29-1-EGS-59-23-24, published prior to the court order, was stalled and kept aside without further proceedings. 15. The petitioner filed additional affidavit dated 24.09.2024 stating that 30.08.2024, the petitioner once again sought approval from the respondent for RITES (the third-party inspection agency), which is required to be mandatorily obtained before dispatching the lift materials. In response, the respondents, by their letter dated 04.09.2024, have expressed their unwillingness to permit rites inspection, yet are insisting on the delivery of the lift materials for which they have agreed to pay 70% of the value. The petitioner submits that respondents' request for delivery of the materials is in violation of the terms of the Letter of Award (LOA), as RITES inspection is mandatory before dispatch and cannot be conducted at the installation site. Subsequently, the petitioner on the 13 NV,J W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of 2024 sent a letter to the respondents on 18.09.2024, outlining the practical difficulties involved and proposing a possible solution to resolve the dispute. The petitioner also filed additional affidavit dated 20.11.2024. It is 16. submitted that, on 30.08.2024, the petitioner once again sought approval from the respondent for RITES (the third-party inspection agency), which is required to be mandatorily obtained before dispatching the lift materials. In response, the respondents, by their letter dated 04.09.2024, have expressed their unwillingness to permit RITES inspection, yet are insisting on the delivery of the lift materials for which they have agreed to pay 70% of the value. A copy of the letter dated 04.09.2024 is annexed as Annexure 2. The petitioner submits that the respondents' request for delivery of the materials is in violation of the terms of the Letter of Award (LOA), as RITES inspection is mandatory before dispatch and cannot be conducted at the installation site. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondents on 18.09.2024 outlining the practical difficulties involved and proposing a possible solution to resolve the dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even after issuance of 17. LoA, the respondents have not entered into contract of execution of work with the petitioner. As per the conditions of LoA, General Conditions of the Contract and as per the Tender Notice, the petitioner shall submit general 14 W.P.NO.8109&8772 arrangements, designs for all the 16 lifts to be installed drawings were to be produced. In compliance of the submitted drawings for proper approval. He also submits that, No.3 herein did not make ready the lift shafts for terms of tender and LoA. and the interior same, the petitioner has Respondent erection of lifts as per the 18. As per the LoA, the petitioner shall execute the contract and complete erection of lifts in respect of 16 stations within a period of nine months i.e from 08.09.2023 to 08.06.2024. Even though the time is still not yet completed, the respondents issued 7 days notice dated 27.02.2024 demanding for showing the progress in reference to two railway stations being APT and BVRM where the construction of lift shafts was completed. Thereafter, the petitioner replied to the said notice on 04.03.2024 stating that the shafts are ready and the manufacturing process is about to complete in respect of APT station and manufacturing process is under progress in respect of BVRM station and that, petitioner is ready to execute the work as per the instructions. But, the lift shafts were not made ready in full-fledged manner. Finally, the petitioner was given 48 hours notice on 20.03.2024 directing the petitioner to submit detailed action plan along with target dates, failing which the contract would stand rescinded and the work carried out under relevant clauses of the conditions on expiry of the said period, under the contract will be of tender/General 15 NV,J W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of 2024 Conditions of Contract. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation to the 48 hour notice on 22.03.2024 submitting the action plan in respect of various railway stations. However, without waiting for further period, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondents issued Termination Advise on 25.03.2024 on the ground that the firm failed to take up the work seriously and failed to comply the terms and conditions of GCC and in view of the work urgency, the administration had no option, except to terminate the work as per Clause 62 of the GCC and to recall the work. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has 19. demonstrated both the capability and willingness to install the lifts once the lift shafts are ready. However, where the lift shafts have not been prepared, .the petitioner is unable to procure the necessary materials, ensure quality assurance, or complete the lift installation. While highlighting the failure on the part of the third respondent in constructing the lift shafts and providing them for lift installation to the petitioner, learned counsel contends that, the issuance of a 48-hour notice and the termination advice, according to the petitioner, is an attempt by the third respondent to cover up their non-performance under the terms of the notice/contract. This action, which benefits a third party who allegedly colluded with the third respondent to deprive the petitioner, is 16 Nv W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of 202a 4^ \ nothing but misuse of power. Therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust and liable to be set-aside. 't' 20. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Teri Union Territory and Ursi Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India. On' the strength of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he contends that, in view of the lapses and latches on the part of the respondents by issuing inadvertent termination advise, the petitioner cannot be permitted for encashment of bank guarantee and EMD. Such 'act is per se illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, issuance of 7 days notice dated 27.02.2024 and 48 hour notice dated 20.03.2024 and Termination Advise dated 25.03.2024 are liable to be set-aside and requested this Court to direct the respondents to issue a contract as originally stated, with an extension of time granted by deducting the period from the initial seven-day notice dated 27.02.2024. vs. 21. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Railways argues that the petitioner failed to submit the general arrangement designs for carrying out civil works for construction of lift shafts as required by the terms of the contract. At no point did the petitioner meet the milestones established by the respondents under the contract. Since the petitioner and respondents had already executed the general conditions of the contract, there is no need for a 17 NV,J W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of 2024 separate agreement for the execution of the contract. The counsel further submits that, for various reasons, the petitioner has neglected to comply with the contract's terms, particularly the primary condition of submitting the general arrangement designs for the construction of lift shafts, instead only providing internal designs and lift designs. Without the general arrangement designs for the construction of lift shafts, the respondents are unable to prepare the lift shafts, as they are not standardized and vary from station to station based on the value of the contract and the specific conditions. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner submitted its tender without having sufficient lift material either to comply with the terms and conditions and to cover up the same, the petitioner initially provided general arrangement designs in respect of three stations only, for which, the respondent made ready the lift shafts as per the terms of contract. In view of the non-submission of the arrangement designs for construction of lift shafts, the respondent is not in a position to complete the construction of lift shafts as required, which is only due to the fault of the petitioner. He submits that, the said fact of non-submission of arrangement designs was admitted by the petitioner in Paragraph No. 14 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein it is stated that, the drawings of the petitioner along with other formalities are almost complete and when the petitioner is about to begin installation, the 22. 18 W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of 2o^ work is terminated. Similarly, in Paragraph No. 16, the petitioner stated \ that, in the termination advise the reason for termination is that, the petitioner has not responded to the 48 hour notice and have not given a detailed plan for execution. Moreover, the petitioner has not responded with action completion of the project as per the terms of the contract for 7 dated 27.02.2024 and 48 hour notice dated plan for days notice 20.03.2024. Having no other option, the respondent issued impugned Termination Advise dated 25.03.2024 to proceed further and accordingly, the respondents issued fresh dated 27.03.2024. Since the petitioner has not adhered contract, he is not entitled to any relief. He further submits that, tender notice to the terms of the as per the allegations of the petitioner, there are disputes between the petitioner and the respondents in complying with the terms of the contract for settlement disputes, it requires oral and documentary evidence of such on part of both parties. Therefore, interference of this Hon'ble Court under extraordinary jurisdiction i. IS unwarranted and this Court cannot resolve such disputes where documentary evidence is very much jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dismiss the writ petition. oral and necessary by invoking extraordinary and requested to 23. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Railways and perused the material available on record. 19 NV,J W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of 2024 24. Pursuant to the submission made by both the counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, the core element of the contract revolves around a specified timeline. This contract is Of significant public interest. In line with the policy of Respondent No.1, Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are responsible for implementing the installation of elevators/lifts at railway stations to address the public’s concerns, specifically to facilitate easier access across platforms for passengers. To that end^ a tender notice was issued requiring to complete the installation of 16 elevators at 16 designated railway stations within a span of 9 months. Upon reviewing the full terms of the contract and after the acceptance letter was issued, it became clear that the first critical milestone was for the petitioner and the respondent’s authorized representative to conduct a thorough inspection of all 16 stations within'two months. This inspection was ultimately completed by both parties on 28.12.2023. Following the inspection, the next step for the petitioner was to submit the general arrangements, designs, and interior drawings for the 16 lifts. 25. However, the petitioner claims that the respondents failed to prepare the lift shafts for the elevators installation, this claim itself contradicts out of the available evidence and the petitioner’s own statements in their affidavit. 20 W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of20i^ 26. The petitioner unequivocally stated in his affidavit that the compiete of designs was finalized and submitted the contract termination date i. 48-hour notice dated 20.03.2024. set \ on 22.03.2024, just two days before e., 25.03.2024 and two days after receiving a even after receipt of the action plan in accordance \ to N Moreover, respondents notice, the petitioner did not submit the with the contract milestones. Only on 22 03 9n9/i a t on ZZ.UJ.2024 the designs for construction of shafts were submitted. This delay and fail} timeline clearly shows that the petitioner has ure to adhere to the stipulated breached the essential condition of the contract, which is of paramount public importance/interes t. 27. It appears that the petitioner submitted a bid without being adequately prepared for the full scope of work only provided general arrangement designs for claiming that the respondents had the other stations. This across the 16 railway stations. Instead he a handful of stations, allegedly necessary lift shafts for seems to be a deiiberale attempt to keep the tender project deiay. not prepared the open and avoid for taking full responsibility for the 28. The argument put forth by the claiming that the respondents acted arbitrarily the principles laid down in Teri vs. Union Territory and Ursi vs. Food Corporation of India is aiso unfounded. This learned counsel for the petitioner. , maliciously, and in violation of Private Limited argumentlacks merit 21 NV,J W.P.NO.8109& 8772 of 2024 as it overlooks the petitioner’s own violations to the tender conditions and-the very essence of the contract i.e., timelines/milestones. Upon reviewing the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that for resolving the matter it requires 29. both oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, dispute resolution of the present case cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Clause 63 of the General Conditions of the Contract deals with 30. 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. i Thus, Clause 62 clearly permits the petitioner to seek alternative remedies. including initiating conciliation proceedings to reach an amicable settlement in an independent and impartial manner within the terms of contract. Based on the above considerations, the writ petition is devoid of merits 31. and accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted the liberty to invoke Clause 63 of the General Conditions of the Contract to pursue 22 WVj W.P.No.8109 & 8772 of 2024 \ alternative remedies, inciuding ciaims, if any, for completed works and any other ciaims, such as the encashment of the bank guarantee, if appiicable. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand 32. closed. WP No 8772 of 2024 In view of my detailed discussion in W.P.No.8109 of 2024 W.P.No.8772 of 2024 is dismissed. 33. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand 34. closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI. OMKAR D., Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI. M SRINIVAS, Central Government Counsel, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies sree HIGH COURT DATED:04/04/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.8109 & 8772 of 2024 ■vs o g 19 JUN 2025 I f. rnif DISMISSING THE W.Ps. WITHOUT COSTS