Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6153 (JHR)

MS JYOTI TRANSPORT COMPANY THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNER LALLAN KUMAR SINGH v. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

WPC/782/2018 · 2025-01-07

Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.782 of 2018 M/s Jyoti Transport Company, a Partnership Firm, having its office at Naya Road, Phusro Bazar, District- Bokaro through one of its Partner, namely, Lallan Kumar Singh, S/o Late Ramashlok Singh, Naya Road, Phusro, P.O. & P.S. Phusro Bazar, District- Bokaro. ….Petitioner Versus 1.Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhangha House, Ranchi. 2.General Manager (KTA), Central Coalfields Limited, Kathara Area, District- Bokaro. 3.The Staff Officer (M), Central Coalfields Limited, Kathara Area, District- Bokaro. … … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate For the Resp.(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate --------- 04/Dated: 07.01.2025. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral) Heard, learned counsel for both the sides. 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for quashing of Letter No.GM (KTA)/ S.O.(M)/ NIT/ 535/ JTC/Can.18/30 dated 09/10.01.2018 (Annexure-11) passed by the Respondent No.3 (The Staff Officer (M), Central Coalfields Limited, Kathara Area, District- Bokaro) cancelling the Letter of Acceptance dated 12.08.2017 issued to the petitioner. 2. Admittedly, though the Letter of Acceptance (in short be called as “LOA”) is dt. 12.08.2017, it was posted to the petitioner on 21.08.2017 and was received by the petitioner on 22.08.2017. 3. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had to submit performance security money and additional performance security money within 28 days of the issuance of Letter of Acceptance (LOA). 4. It is contention of the petitioner that after the receipt of LOA dated 22.08.2017, he gave the performance security and the additional performance security on 11.09.2017 on the 21st day after receipt of LOA by him. 5. In the impugned order, however, a stand has been taken by the respondents that these documents were given by the petitioner beyond the period of 28 days from the date of issuance of LOA. 2 6. When it is not in dispute that the LOA was dispatched to the petitioner on 21.08.2017 and the same was received by the petitioner on 22.08.2017, it is not open to the respondents to contend that the petitioner should have furnished the performance security money and additional performance security money within 28 days from 12.08.2017. 7. The period of 28 days for furnishing the performance security money and additional security money should be counted only from the date of receipt of the LOA by the petitioner i.e. 22.08.2017 because without receipt of LOA, petitioner would not be sure that he was granted the LOA and be able to furnish the same. 8. The interpretation placed by the respondents in Clause 4.2 of the GTC, petitioner cannot be accepted and he cannot be expected to furnish the performance security money and additional security money without the LOA was reached to him. Merely because the LOA issued on 12.08.2017, the period of 28 days cannot be counted from the said date when there is delay of nine days in dispatching it to the petitioner and was received by the petitioner on 21.08.2017. 9. Therefore, the action of the respondents in cancelling the contract/forfeiture of performance security money and the additional security money is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 10. As such, the impugned order dated 09/10.01.2018 passed by the respondent(s) is set aside and the respondents are directed to return the forfeited performance security money and additional security money to the petitioner within six weeks from today along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of forfeiture till the date of payment. Further the respondents shall also pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner for the illegal and arbitrary action and the same shall also be paid within six weeks from today. 11. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands allowed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/Anit/ [W.P.(C) No.782 of 2018]