IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.570 of 2010 1. KUMAR RAMASHRAY PRASAD S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD R/O VILL.- GOHARI, P.O. BANDHU BAGICHA, P.S. & DISTT.- LAKHISARAI Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR (VAISHALI) 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DANAPUR DIVISION 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER-II, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, KIUL ----------- 4 09/03/2010 Two communications contained in Annexures 5 and 7 are under challenge in the present writ application. By virtue of annexure-5 the respondent railway authorities have directed the petitioner to start work on the contract awarded to him which was for certain construction to be carried out at Kiul railway station. As the petitioner had not shown any progress to the work assigned Annexure-5 came to be issued to him. When the respondents did not see any progress in the work, they decided to issue yet another letter dated 7.9.2009 contained in annexure-7 where they decided to invoke clause 62 of General Conditions of Contract which contemplated action of rescinding of contract, forfeiture of security deposit - 2 - as well as performance guarantee coupled with liberty to the respondent to go for re-tendering, may be at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Averment of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a bonafide mistake committed by him in giving the price which he had quoted for iron rod to be used in construction of the building. Ongoing price of the Tors steel at that time was above Rs.50,000/- but he quoted a figure of Rs.5300/-. When he realised the mistake, he wrote to the respondent that he is not in a position to accept the award of work at such a low price quoted by him for the iron/steel but this request of the petitioner was not accepted. Work came to be awarded on the original tender and the price quoted by the petitioner. The petitioner refused to accept the contract and the consequential orders under annexures 5 and 7 came to be passed. The stand of the respondent is that the petitioner’s claim is not bonafide. Action taken against him is permissible within the parameters of the terms and conditions of the contract. The total value of the notice inviting tender was rupees sixty-one lacs. The petitioner had quoted - 3 - Rs.60,58,143.26. This was the total price which the petitioner had quoted for carrying out the contracted work. Components of steel/iron or other materials are none of the concern of the railways. The rate he quoted or worked out on various heads of material was the responsibility of the petitioner before he successfully bid for the contract in question. The mistake which he is talking about with regard to the price of iron is a camouflage because if it was a bonafide mistake with regard to the price then the estimated cost provided by the petitioner would never work out to the figure of rupees sixty lacs and odd. There seems to be much force in the contention of the respondents. Once the petitioner was found to be successful bidder and his bids were within the range of the estimated value of the tender, then rates of items and heads under which the quotations have been made is of no consequence. If the figure quoted by the petitioner was far below the estimated price, then may be the benefit of doubt could have accrued in favour of the petitioner but this is not so. Obviously the petitioner was looking for a wind fall by raising such objection. Once he was awarded the contract he - 4 - could opt out of it only at his own peril and cost contemplated for such breach. The respondents have done no wrong in passing the impugned order contained in annexures 5 and 7. This writ application is dismissed as being devoid of merit. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)