M/S.M.M.Construction vs. Union Of INDIA.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. M.M. Constructions, entered into an agreement with the Railways on October 18, 2005. The Railways later rescinded this contract by a letter dated March 26, 2009, and floated a fresh tender. The Petitioner filed a writ petition, and on July 22, 2009, the High Court issued an interim order restraining the Railways from proceeding with the fresh tender. The Petitioner alleged that the Railways proceeded with the fresh tender and got the work completed by another contractor despite the interim order. The Railways contended that these steps were taken before the interim order was passed. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit raising grievances regarding money owed for work done, including the return of a security deposit, and the charging of GST in the final bill, which was introduced in July 2017.

Held

The Court noted that the original cause of action for the petition no longer survived. However, acknowledging the Petitioner's subsequent grievances raised in the rejoinder affidavit concerning money owed for work done, the return of security deposit, and the charging of GST, the Court held that the scope of the present writ petition did not permit adjudication of these new issues. Nevertheless, the Court permitted the Petitioner to make a representation to the Railways by April 25, 2022, detailing all their claims. The Railways were directed to consider this representation, provide a hearing to the Petitioner, and pass a reasoned order by June 27, 2022, communicating it to the Petitioner by July 4, 2022. The Petitioner was granted liberty to seek appropriate remedies if aggrieved by the Railways' decision. The issue of GST charging was not directly decided but was included within the scope of the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Railways proceeded with the fresh tender and got the work completed by another contractor notwithstanding the interim order dated July 22, 2009, passed by this Court? (Mixed question of fact and law) 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to claims for work already done, return of security deposit, and the incorrect charging of GST in the final bill? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that the Railways proceeded with the fresh tender and completed the work through another contractor despite the Court's interim order. They also raised grievances regarding outstanding payments for work performed and the erroneous imposition of GST on their final bill, which was introduced after the contract period. Revenue/State's arguments: The Railways contended that the actions taken regarding the fresh tender and work completion occurred prior to the issuance of the interim order. No specific arguments were recorded by the Court regarding the Petitioner's subsequent claims for payment and GST.