The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters involving public authorities and the importance of resolving disputed questions of fact through alternate remedies, such as arbitration.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants against the judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in WP (C) 15398/2022 whereby the Ld. Single Judge has rejected the petition titled "Kamaladityya Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rail Land Development Authority & Anr.", filed by the Appellant herein seeking quashing and setting aside of the letter dated 02.11.2022 terminating the EPC Agreement dated 02.12.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1 herein.

2.??The Appellant No.1/Kamaladittya Construction Pvt. Ltd./(hereinafter "KCPL") company is a civil infrastructure projects construction company, whereas the Appellant No. 2 is a director and shareholder in the Appellant no. 1 company and its authorised representative. As part of a national railway upscaling project, the Ministry of Railways had entrusted the IRSDC, which was an erstwhile joint venture between Respondent No.1 and IRCON, for redevelopment works at railway station Bijsawan, Sector 21, Dwarka. Sometime in 2022, ISRDC became defunct pursuant to which a novation to the contract dated 02.12.2019 was executed on the same terms. At the time of this appeal, the Respondent No.1/Rail Land Development Authority is the primary body to oversee the redevelopment project at Bijsawan Railway Station, which is to be done on railway lands owned by the Respondent No.2 Ministry.

3.??It is the main grouse of the Appellant company that as per clause 8.1 and 8.3 of the EPC contract, the Respondent No. 1 failed to meet the responsibility of securing right of way for the Appellants for completion of the project by not obtaining permission to transplant/fell encumbering tree which are stated to be in the way of the Appellant company's tasks, by not seeking permission from the concerned authorities under Sections 8 and 9 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, and due to this reason the Appellants could not proceed with milestones of work orders.

4.??The facts, shorn of details leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as under:

a) Redevelopment work for the railway station at Bijsawan, Sector 21, Dwarka, New Delhi was entrusted to Indian Railways Station Development Corporation Limited ("IRSDC"), a joint venture between IRCON and Respondent No.1. The development project is stated to be done on lands entrusted by the Respondent No.2/Ministry of Railways, spanning an area of 359.266 acres.

b) It is stated that in order to proceed with mixed use construction for redevelopment on the project site, it was deemed expedient to fell/relocate trees in and around the project site which were encumbering the project site and causing hindrances in construction works.

c) Clause 3.1.7(a) of the EPC Contract casts an obligation on the contractor to make applications before government authorities to obtain necessary permits listed under Schedule F annexed to the EPC Contract. Prior permission for felling of trees was required from the Forest Authorities as per provisions of Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 and its accompanying rules. Accordingly, an application seeking felling permissions was sent to the Deputy Conservator of Forests (West) on 30.03.2016. The Respondent No.2 through its instrumentality Northern Railways sent a fresh representation letter seeking permission, along with an inventory of trees required to be cleared from the project site. This application was rejected by the Deputy Conservator for the reason that documents under Form B to Delhi Preservation of Trees Rules, 1996 were not submitted in the application as required. Pending a decision on the application, the erstwhile project authority, IRSDC, through the Northern Railways sent a letter dated to the Forest authority for obtaining transplantation of trees in 198.64 acres of the project land.

d) The office of the Deputy Commissioner of Forests issued an order rejecting the application requesting for necessary permission to fell/transplant trees situated on the project sit