IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11380 of 2009 M/S J.S.COMPANY THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHEO NANDAN SINGH, SON OF RAM BILASH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. BIHAT, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI---PETITIONER. Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI. 2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER(CONSTRUCTION) (NORTH), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, MAHENDRU GHAT, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HEAD QUARTER)/CON/GB, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, MAHENDRU GHAT, PATNA. 4. THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER/CONSTRUCTION/II, SAMASTIPUR, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR---RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03. 12.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner Company is a railway contractor and is aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction/II, Samastipur, East Central Railway, Samastipur dated 17.1.2009, Annexure-1 whereunder the contract entrusted to the petitioner stands terminated with effect from the date of completion of the contract i.e. 30.6.2008. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the total work entrusted was for more than Rs.15 crores, out of which major part has already been completed. The remaining work, however, could not be completed by the date of completion as the authorities failed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,41,60,000/-, which amount remained due with the authorities against the work already completed. Request for such payment, although, made but not considered by the authorities. Had the said payment released within time the contract should have been completed on or before 30.6.2008. It is asserted that only on account of failure of the authorities to pay the petitioner the aforesaid amount, the work could not be completed by 30.6.2008. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner further invites my attention to the representations dated 30.5.2008, 23.6.2008 and 25.6.2008 as contained in Annexures-7, 8 and 8/A to this application, in which he had specifically pointed out that on account of failure of the authorities to clear the dues of the contract, the work is not being executed but without appreciating the request of the petitioner to release the fund, the contract has been terminated with retrospective effect under the impugned order dated 17.1.2009, Annexure 1 passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction/II, Samastipur, East Central Railway, Samastipur. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, in my opinion, petitioner should ventilate his grievances before the Chief Engineer(Head Quarter)/Con/GB, East Central Railway, Mahendru Ghat, Patna, Respondent No.3 that the work could not be executed within time fixed under the contract for the failure of the authorities to pay Rs. 1,41,60,000/- in respect of the work already completed by the petitioner and if the Chief Engineer is stratified that the work could not be executed for the failure of the authorities to release the amount, he should recall the impugned order and give further opportunity to the petitioner to execute the works contract and complete the same within a reasonable time. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)