IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 3494 of 2008 M/S Dayanand Prasad Sinha & Co, Janta Path, Kankarbagh Road, Patna - 20, through its special attorney Sri Mritunjay Kumar Singh, son of late Shiv Kumar Singh, resident of Ohm Sai Villa Apartment, Bahadurpur, Police Station – Kankarbagh, District – Patna - Petitioner Versus 1 The Union of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi 2 Sri K C Jena, the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi 3 Sri Girish Bhatnagar, the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District – Hajipur 4 Sri Madhuresh Kumar, the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) (South), Mahendrughat, Patna, District – Patna 5 Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, the Chief Engineer (Construction) (South), East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna, District – Patna 6 Sri P P Pandey, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna, District – Patna 7 Sri Vinod Kumar, the Executive Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Ara - Opposite Parties ----------- 2 10.05.2011 The petitioner had undertaken a railway contract which was cancelled at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The contract was retendered. Petitioner challenged that in the writ petition. First, an interim order was passed restraining Railways from proceeding further in the matter but subsequently, this Court vacated the order directing Railways to measure the work done for future use before handing over work under the new contract to another person. Ultimately, the petition was taken up and allowed. It was held that the contract, though could have been rescinded, the retender could not be at the risk and cost of the petitioner. As per Railway’s own showing, petitioner was not at fault for the delay. Thus, the writ petition was allowed with a direction that the 2 retender will not be subject to risk and cost of the petitioner. This contempt application was filed by the petitioner making two grievances. Firstly, that Railways have not issued any corrigendum amending the retender notice that it would not be at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Secondly, Railways have not carried out the measurements, as was ordered by the interim order in the proceedings. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the Railways in which it is asserted that in view of the judgment of this Court, there is no question of the Railways invoking the risk and cost condition as against the petitioner because the condition has already been struck down by this Court. It is further stated that no efforts have at all been made to invoke the said clause and, as such, the grievance of the petitioner is totally premature. With regard to measurement, it is submitted that as per petitioner’s own petition, it is clear that several notices were given to the petitioner to be physically present at the time of measurement and to facilitate measurement but petitioner had not turned up. It is admitted that one representative of the petitioner did turn up but on the date and time fixed, he also did not turn up for measurement. It is stated that in absence of petitioner, measurement was then done because the work could not he held up and, accordingly, bills have already been prepared which the petitioner can collect. Considering the entire aspects of the matter, in my view, I direct that the petitioner should appear before Opposite Party No 6 that is the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway who would arrange to immediately hand over the payments to the petitioner. 3 He would also hand over duly attested copies of the measurement book and calculations in support of the payment being made to the petitioner. Petitioner would be able to raise such grievance before such forum as he may be advised if he is not satisfied with the payment so made. With this observation, this application stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)