M/S Dharmraj Tiwari (Civil And Railways Contractor) Through Its Proprietor Dharmraj Tiwari vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court disposed of the writ application by directing the petitioner to file an appropriate, articulated representation before Respondent No. 3 (The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad) within 15 days from the date of the order, along with a certified copy of the order. Respondent No. 3 was directed to dispose of this representation by a speaking and reasoned order within 45 days of receiving it. This disposal would be after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other necessary Railway officials. The Court did not decide on the merits of the specific claims regarding payment amounts, GST, penalty, or interest, as the matter was settled by directing the representation to be considered. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach it again if the representation is not disposed of as directed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dharmraj Tiwari, a civil and railway contractor, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court seeking directions for payment of dues for various completed works under different agreement numbers. The petitioner sought payment as per measurement books updated from side registers, payment for gate counsellor attendance, and refund of penalty and GST deducted against a specific agreement where payment was delayed. The petitioner also sought interest on the delayed payment. The core of the grievance was the alleged non-payment or delayed payment of bills for work completed as per agreements.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondents (Railways) to make payment of dues as per the measurement made in the side register and update the Measurement Book (M.B.) accordingly for Agreement no. 48M/DTO/16-17? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the respondents should decide the petitioner's representations for payment of dues for completed work under various agreements after providing an opportunity of hearing? (Question of law) 3. Whether the respondents should pay the petitioner as per the attendance of the gate counsellor under Sr. Divisional Engineer (1) E.C. Railway, Dhanbad for Agreement no. W.584/18-19/Qnt./Gate Mira/Sr. DEN(1)? (Question of fact and law) 4. Whether the respondents should refund the penalty amount and GST deducted against Agreement no. 110M/CPU/2010-11, along with interest, for work completed in 2015 but paid after 6 years without interest? (Question of fact and law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that appropriate directions should be given for the disposal of their representations, which would redress their grievances regarding pending payments and deductions. Respondents' Contention: The Railways submitted that if a representation is filed by the petitioner, it would be disposed of within a stipulated period after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.