The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.36425 of 2014 Dated 28.11.2014 Between:
M/s.Sai Manikanta Transport …Petitioner And The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Venkateshwar Varanasi Counsel for the respondents: Mr.N.S.Pattabhi Rama Rao Krishna Rao,
Company Ltd.,
for Mr.Nandigama
SC for Singareni Collieries
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents, in considering the petitioner’s application seeking extension of the contract period by six months from 25-02-2015 to 25-08-2015 to enable it to complete the contracted work of transportation of coal from Dorli OCP-2 to SRP & RKP CHPs on weight basis, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider its representation.
The petitioner pleaded that in pursuance of the tender notification, dated 29-03-2012, issued by the respondents, it has submitted its tender for transportation of coal from Dorli OCP-2 to SRP & RKP CHPs for a period of two years and that as it emerged as the lowest bidder, negotiations were held with it on 20-12-2012 and work order was issued in its favour, on 22-02-2013, for a period of two years, by fixing the total quantity of coal to be transported as 14 lakh tons. The petitioner further averred that due to major crack/geological problem in the mine concerned, the coal production was stopped from 15-09-2014, as a result of which, it was not allotted any coal for transportation and that, as of now, it has transported only 7,16,400 tons of coal against the agreed quantity of 14 lakh tons. The petitioner is, therefore, stated to have made a representation on 01-11-2014 to the Director (P&P) of respondent No.1- Company seeking extension of the contract period by six months i.e., upto 25.08.2015 so as to enable it to complete the transportation of the contracted quantity of coal. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the said representation, the respondents have issued a tender notification for allotment of the contract afresh.
In support of its plea that it is entitled to extension of time for completion of the contracted work, the petitioner has placed reliance on Clause 8 (ii) of Agreement, dated 05-03-2013, entered into between both the parties, which reads as under:
“The force majeure conditions shall be considered subject to documentary evidence. The force majeure conditions shall be recorded in “site register” maintained by mine authorities at the beginning and at the end of force majeure conditions and signed by the contractor and mine authorities. Otherwise such a plea of force majeure cannot be agreed. The force majeure conditions are considered for extension of time for completion of work and shall not be considered for exemption of quantities to be transported.”
From the above-mentioned clause, it is evident that if any force majeure conditions prevailed, on account of which, the contracted work could not be completed within the time stipulated in the contract, the contractor is entitled for extension of time for completion of the same. As the petitioner has pleaded that such force majeure conditions occurred, it is incumbent upon respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s representation and if it finds that any force majeure condition has occurred in respect of the mine in question, it shall consider extension of the petitioner’s contract period. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, stated to have been made to the Director (P&P) of respondent No.1, take a decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, new tender, with respect to any part of the work entrusted to the petitioner by work order, dated 22-02-2013, shall not be finalized.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.45599 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 28th November, 2014
LUR