Point of Law: It is settled that interpretation and implementation of clauses in a contract cannot ordinarily be subject-matter of a writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent authorities to pay him an amount of Rs. 7,61,858/-contending that the said amount has remained outstanding towards a contract-work executed by the petitioner for the respondent N.F. Railway authorities. According to the petitioner, the amount of Rs. 7,61,858/-consists of two bill amounts amounting to Rs. 3,51,858/- and Rs. 4,10,000/- respectively.

2. The facts which are not in dispute can be stated at first. The respondent N.F. Railway authorities published a Tender Notice vide E-Tender no. RN-ST-10,2017-18 for a contract work :-‘Painting of Signaling and Telecom gears in CGS-RNY-NBQ & AZA-GLPT-MZQ Section of BG-I & BG-II section of RNY Division’ [‘the Contract-Work’, for short]. On such publication, the petitioner took part in the tender process initiated by the said Tender Notice by submitting his tender. After evaluation of the tenders of the participant bidders, the petitioner was issued a Letter of Acceptance [LoA] dated 12.12.2017 as he emerged as the successful bidder, whereby, the petitioner was awarded the Contract-Work at a contract price of Rs. 5,14,210/-inclusive of all taxes and duties and charges as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender document. By the LoA, the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount towards security deposit @ 5% of the contract price of Rs. 5,14,210/-with the condition that the security deposit would be returned to the petitioner after completion of the Contract-Work in all respects on being certified by the competent authority. The petitioner as the successful bidder, was also asked to submit Performance Guarantee [PG] amounting to 5% of the contract price. Clause 2 of the LoA mentioned that the Contract-Work should be completed within 90 days from the date of issuance of the LoA. The petitioner was thereby, asked to start the Contract-Work immediately and to complete it within the stipulated period from the date of issuance of the LoA. It was further informed that unless any extension to the date of completion was granted subsequently as per General Conditions of Contract [GCC] and Standard Special Conditions of Contract [SSCC] of the N.F. Railway, 1998 Edition vide Clause no. 17 and if the extension period is granted due to contractor’s delay, Clause no. 17B of GCC would be implemented for deducting the Liquidated Damages [LD]. By issuing the LoA, the petitioner was requested to sign the necessary Contract-Agreement. Upon compliance of the formalities set forth in the LoA by the petitioner, a Contract-Agreement no. ST20170024 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent N.F. Railway authorities on 23.01.2018. As per the Contract-Agreement, the period of completion was 90 days, that is, from 12.12.2017 to 11.03.2018. It was agreed that if the Contractor would duly perform the Contract Work in the manner stated in the Contract-Agreement observing the terms and conditions, the Railway authorities would pay or cause to be paid to the Contractor for the said Contract Work on the final completion thereof the amount due in respect thereof, at the rate specified in the schedule therein.

3. The case projected by the petitioner, in brief, is that he completed the Contract-Work on 08.08.2018. The petitioner has contended that in addition to the Contract-Work, he was required to complete certain extra works on 01.01.2019 in relation to the Contract-Work which was worth Rs. 5,00,000/-. After completion of the Contract-Work, the petitioner submitted a Final Variation Statement with reference to Contract-Agreement no. ST-20170024 dated 23.01.2018 and the same was duly accepted and admitted by the respondent no. 5. It is claimed that in a Forwarding Report dated 09.12.2019, the respondent Railway authorities had admitted liability of an amount of Rs. 3,51,858/-after deduction of GST, cess, etc. in respect of the Contract-Work. The petitioner has contended