Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 405
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BHAVANI PRASAD, G.S.SINGHVI
MRKR-MBGEC, rep.by C.Manohar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Chief Administrative Officer, Construction, South Central Railway, Secunderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03-22-06
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1966 – Railway requires reconsideration - Tender for re-building –Writ Petition and batch, insofar as it relates to interpretation of clause 18. 2 of the agreement entered into between the contractors and the Administration of South Central Railway requires reconsideration – Pursuance of Tender Notice and corrigendum issued by the Railway Administration, M/s. MRKR-MBGEC petitioner in Writ Petition submitted tender for re-building of bridge no. 750 across river Pennar on permanent diversion spans, PSC box section girders (existing 13 x 39. 60 M GB) with well foundation at Km. 375/10 = 376/2 including earth work on approaches from and construction of minor bridge proposed as 1 x 3. 66 M. RCC box –Held, parties to the agreement is a statutory or public body will not by itself affect the principles to be applied –Disputes about the meaning of a covenant in a contract or its enforceability have to be determined according to the usual principles of the contract Act. Every act of a statutory body need not necessarily involve an exercise of statutory power. Statutory bodies, like private parties, have power to contract or deal with property. Such activities may not raise any issue of public law. In the present case, it has not been shown how the contract is statutory –contract between the parties is in the realm of private law – It is not a statutory contract –Disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India – Whether any amount is due and if so, how much and refusal of the appellant to pay it is justified or not are not the matters which could have been agitated and decided in a writ petition –contractor should have relegated to other remedies – Writ petitions are dismissed.
( 1 ) THESE petitions have been placed before the Division Bench in view of order dated 3-3-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, who felt that the ratio of the decision dated 23-3-2005 rendered by another Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21401 of 2004 and batch, insofar as it relates to interpretation of clause 18. 2 of the agreement entered into between the contractors and the Administration of South Central Railway requires reconsideration. The facts:
( 2 ) IN pursuance of Tender Notice No. 59/ cao/c/sc/2003, dated 4-8-2003 and corrigendum No. 1, dated 29-8-2003 issued by the Railway Administration, M/s. MRKR-MBGEC (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3520 of 2006) submitted tenderfor re-building of bridge no. 750 across river Pennar on permanent diversion as 1 x 39. 60 M + 11 x 40. 20 M + 1 x 39. 60 M (Clear) spans, PSC box section girders (existing 13 x 39. 60 M GB) with well foundation at Km. 375/10 = 376/2 including earth work on approaches from Km. 375/8 Km. 376/2 and construction of minor bridge no. 751 (existing 3. 66 M Arch Bridge) proposed as 1 x 3. 66 M. RCC box between Komali and juturu stations. The petitioner was awarded contract for construction of the aforementioned bridge etc. After execution of the work, the petitioner submitted bills. The competent authority of the Administration of South Central railway deducted seigniorage charges on ordinary sand used for civil construction in terms of para 27. 2 of contract agreement read with Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short, the 1966 Rules ).
( 3 ) M/s. Sri M. Ravinder Reddy (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3746 of 2006) was awarded contract for Karimnagar-Jagityal New E. G. Line (earth work in formation, cutting and construction of minor bridges from Ch 69000 m to Ch 69850 between Gangadhara and jagityal stations ). The petitioner executed agreement No. 4/cao/c/sc/06, dated 6-1 -2006. The competent authority deducted seigniorage charges on ordinary earth used for civil construction in accordance with para 12. 3 of the agreement. This has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that in the absence of any specific provision in the contract agreement, the respondents cannot deduct or withhold the amount representing seigniorage charges.
( 4 ) SRI K. Ajay Kumar Reddy (petitioner in writ Petition No. 3965 of 2006) entered into an agreement with the respondents for doing work on Karimnagar-Jagityal New E. G. Line. He executed agreement No. 182/cao/c/sc/ 2003, dt. 18-12-2003. He has also questioned the action of the respondents to withhold seigniorage charges on ordinary earth.
( 5 ) THE petitioners have generally pleaded that instructions issued by Chief Administrative officer, Construction, South Central Railway, secunderabad (respondent No. 1) vide his letter dated 25-6-2004 envisaged deduction of seigniorage charges from the bills submitted by the contractors, but in view of the subsequent clarification issued by Principal chief Engineer vide Memo dated 15-12-2004, seigniorage charges cannot be levied on ordinary earth. They have relied on order dated 23-3-2005 passed by the Single Judge in Writ petition No. 21401 of 2004 and batch, order dated 6-4-2005 passed in Writ Petition no. 7476 of 2005, orderdated 13-4-2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 25081 of 2004, orderdated 18-8-2005 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 11235, 11236, 11244, 11245, 11246, 11247, 11264, 12550, 12763, 12765 and 13133 of 2005 and orderdated 22-8-2005 passed in Writ Petition nos. 15201, 15210, 15213 and 15214 of 2005 and pleaded that in view of those orders, the deduction of seigniorage charges on ordinary earth should be declared illegal and the respondents be directed to refund the amount already deducted. The petitioners have relied on letter dated 17-9-2004 issued by respondent no. 1 and Memo dated 15-12-2004 issued by principal Chief Engineer, South Central railway and averred that levy of seigniorage charges on ordinary eart
