M/S Jai Maa Tara Projects, Rep. Through Its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain vs. Central Coalfields Limited (Ccl) Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director

Facts

M/s Jai Maa Tara Projects (the petitioner) was awarded a tender by Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) for loading, transportation, and spreading of coal. The contract was for 420 days, commencing from November 22, 2024, to January 15, 2026, with a minimum daily handling quantity. The petitioner claims to have deployed resources and incurred financial liabilities. It alleges that the shortfall in coal handled was due to hindrances beyond its control. CCL issued a fresh e-tender notice on December 3, 2025, which included the scope of work already awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner represented CCL for an extension of time to complete the balance work, but no decision was communicated. The petitioner sought directions for an extension of time without penalty and to quash the fresh e-tender notice.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because the dispute is purely contractual and lacks any public law element. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient materials to demonstrate that it reported hindrances as required by Clause 6.4 of the Service Level Agreement or that it made best efforts to prevent or mitigate delays. The Court noted that the determination of factual issues, such as responsibility for delays, requires evidence that cannot be adequately assessed in writ jurisdiction. The judgment in M/s Utkal High Ways Engineers and Contractors was distinguished, as in that case, the delay was found to be not attributable to the petitioner based on the documents presented. The Court also pointed out that the Service Level Agreement provides for dispute resolution through conciliation and arbitration, which the petitioner failed to avail. The Court observed that CCL had already extended the execution period of the awarded work from January 16, 2026, to February 6, 2026, vide a letter dated January 9, 2026. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with the petitioner being at liberty to pursue alternative remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in a contractual dispute involving no public law element, as argued by the respondents? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time for the contractual work based on Clauses 6.4 and 6.6 of the Service Level Agreement, as contended by the petitioner? 3. Whether the issuance of a fresh tender during the subsistence of the petitioner's contract constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power and an indirect termination of the existing contract, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in work was due to hindrances beyond its control and that Clauses 6.4 and 6.6 of the Service Level Agreement provide for extension of time. It relied on the Orissa High Court's judgment in M/s Utkal High Ways Engineers and Contractors vs. General Manager, Lingaraj Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited & Ors., arguing that inviting a fresh tender pending consideration of extension amounts to termination of the subsisting contract and violates fundamental rights. The petitioner also contended that the fresh tender issuance was a colourable exercise of power. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents primarily argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the dispute is purely contractual, involving no public law element. They also contended that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient materials to demonstrate that it reported hindrances and used its best efforts to mitigate delays, and that extension of time is not a matter of right but discretion.