^.^-^— \// ^ ,v - vo< ^ IN THE HiGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH WRITPETITIONNO,^^( OF 2004 PETITiONER: .e^e^ .-^?^ •••' ^v\V (^ .'. ' \ ^^y <y-'" \^ ,6 ^vs RESPONDENTS: M/SSureshPrasad, A Proprietorship Firm/Civil Contractors through Proprietor . :.^rv/ sllresh Prasad, S/0 Late Shri ••^0^' Shivnandan Prasad, Aged about 50 years, R/0 Banaras Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.). Versus ^ .:"'•.:.-: ^/^ ^- 'rf> 1. South East Central Railway, Tlirough its General Manager, Zonal Headquarter, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. DeputyChiefEngineer/C/II, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.). ^"u WAIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L..-.-.-..-.... 3^ x:I-HG—78' -^T cT^TT TS^ ^JZJT(^^ •QTf^Tjii, -fsr^ra-OT ^^I.^.:.2JOOLi.a:00.^.. a ^ 23.11.2004 On a mention being majde^ the matter is taken up for hearing. Shri Prashant Mishra, a ounsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Murthy^ Stahding Counsel for Union of India. Shri Mritunjay Kumajr, Chief Ehgineer, Railway Authorities, Bilaspur, is present in the Coijirt. Heard on the applic4tion I.A. No. 8509/2004, whereby the j petitioner has requested thati be allowed to make a repres< allowing him to continue withl Learned counsel for th^ petitioner submits that the petitioner was awarded the contract of earthjwork, minor bridges, protection works and other allied works from 12.0Q work has already been compli in the circumstances, the petitioner may ^ntation to the respondent authorities for the contract work. Km. to 19.80 Km. in connection with the construction of new broad^Liage railway line between Bishranipur Railway Station and Ambikap|jir Railway Station. Learned counsel for th^ petitioner submits that on 24.12.2002 the petitioner was granted the co^tract. He further submits that almost 70% Aed but the work was delayed on account of non-receipt of the clearanfce from the Ministry of Environment and Forest and the same was takbn by the respondent authorities. Looking to the petitioner's difficulties, vide order dated 12.7.2004 extension for execution of |;he work was granted to the petitioner. However, on 19.7.2004, allj of a sudden his contract award was cancelled. H^ also urged tl|at the petitioner is ready-to execute the remainingwork on the already agreed rates. s ^•^•^! ^T^T^T^N- I E Sunita y^^ '^sr ^FTRR, ''€§'€t^P7'€,"fN^T^Ty ^9..:..^°ll <2:^stt.. ^N — 2^- ^ fezt "^ On the other hand, $hri V.V.S. Murthy submits that after cancellation of the contract, fj come fon/vard for taking up th^ In the circumstances, I'esh tenders were invited but no one has remaining work. |f the petitioner is ready to execute the remaining work on the same t^rms and conditions, then it would be fair and reasonable for Railway Au|:horities to consider his representation. Learned counsel for thd petitioner further submits that from the the petitioner, he will give an undertaking date of the order of contract toj to the respondent authoritiesj The respondent authorities ar^ that he will complete the work by 15th March 2005. Therefore, the petition^r is allowed to make a representation within a period of 7 days for c^nsideration of tbe respondent authorities. directed to decide the representation after considering all the points ra|sed by the petitioner within a period of another 15 days from the datd of receipt of copy of this order and in that process if the Railway Authorities permit the petitioner to complete the remaining work, then the ijespondent authorities may impose the conditions on the petitioner. jln case^ if the petitioner fails to complete the work within a time awarde|:l^ then penalty will be imposed on him. With the direction afore^aid, the petition stands disposed of. Consequently, I.A. No, ^509/2004 also stands disposed of. Certified copy as per ru|es. ———--~ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge o ^§/