IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.411 of 2009 M/S CHANDRA ENTERPRISES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MIGH 83, LOHIA NAGAR, P.S. KANKARBAGH, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA THROUGH AMIT KUMAR ONE OF THE PARTNERS . Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF RAIL, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HAJIPUR. 3. DIVISIONAL RAIL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR. 4. SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (CO-ORD) DANAPUR 5. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (BRIDGE), DANAP0UR. 6. ASSISTANT ENGINEER (BRIDGE) 1 EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAXAUL. ----------- 3/ 04.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Vide order dated 2nd September, 2008 the award of tender for work in terms of contract Agreement No.110/Misc/DNR/2005-06 dated 20.09.2006 has come to be annulled by the respondents, E.C. Railway, Danapur for the reason that the work was never completed, not only within the time frame on the agreement but even by extended time granted to him in this regard. The primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is sufficient material to show that there was additional work to be carried out and new items had to be given up and included in the tender and the respondents have taken their own sweet time in reaching such a decision which is borne out from the contents of Annexure-3 as well as Annexure-3/A. The delay in decision for variation of the new item was reason - 2 - that work could not be completed. When the Railways have failed in their duties then the liability cannot be fastened by the petitioner by rescinding the contract in question. Learned counsel, representing the respondents- railways, have filed their detailed counter affidavit and they have stated many a things which primarily leads to one conclusion that the petitioner was never interested in doing the work awarded to him under contract. Except for entering into letter writing competition, he never made any substantial progress on the work front. The respondents did grant indulgence by extending the time but the extended time was to beget progress for the assigned tender under the contract. Looking at the urgent nature of completion of the work project the respondents had no option but to direct for carrying out the work on risk and cost factor. One of the aspects which has been highlighted by the learned counsel is that after the re-tendering at the risk and cost factor by the respondents the petitioner also participated in the re-tendering, quoted his rates which were found to be on higher side and, thereafter, he was invited for negotiation. There is clear evidence in this regard available on record which is Annexure-9 to the I.A. No.3152 of 2009 filed on behalf of the petitioner. The Court has been informed that finally the work has come to be - 3 - awarded to another contractor for the “ balance of work” left out by the said contractor. From what has been submitted at the Bar on behalf of the respondents if Annexure-9 is not disputed then all submissions which are sought to be made by the petitioner with regard to action of the respondents to annul the contract has remained only academic and the same need not be gone into. Now with the development and with the conduct of the petitioner in bidding and participating in the new tender, which was at his own risk and cost factor this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-7 dated 02.09.2008. The writ application is devoid of any merit and is thus dismissed. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J ) BTiwary/