Inordinate delay in challenging contract termination warrants dismissal of the writ petition under Article 226; the court is not required to entertain negligent claims, emphasizing strict adherence to timelines.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. A. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Yangerwati, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 4.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the termination notice dated 28.10.2014 as well as the letter dated 20.04.2015 issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Lumding, Northeast Frontier Railway for forfeiture of the earnest money and performance guarantee and further seeks for a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Chief Medical Superintendent, Lumding, Northeast Frontier Railway to refund the performance guarantee of Rs.44,664/- and earnest money of Rs.19,330/- along with payment of Rs.1,46,600/- for the works done by the petitioner which were raised before the CMS, Lumding vide bills along with various other expenses as enumerated in the letter dated 12.03.2015.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that on 03.04.2014, a tender was issued for removal and disposal of garbage from the Dimapur Railway area for a period of 2 (two) years from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2016. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner herein was granted the contract on25.07.2014 for the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2016.

4. It is relevant to take note of that on 09.07.2014 as well as on 09.09.2014, the petitioner was informed that he has failed in performing the contract work for disposal of the garbage and the performance was not satisfactory. It was mentioned that the failure to carry out the obligation upon the petitioner was in violation to the terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioner was therefore requested to execute the work with full satisfaction as per the terms and conditions of the contract otherwise necessary steps would be taken as per the contract agreement.

5. Subsequent thereto, on 28/30.10.2014 the petitioner was informed by the Chief Medical Superintendent/LMG that the contract between the petitioner and the respondents would be terminated w.e.f. 31.10.2014 for unsatisfactory performance of the work.

6. The record reveals that on 12.03.2015, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Medical Superintendent/LMG, Northeast Frontier Railway that the contract in question was terminated w.e.f. 31.10.2014 and in view of such termination, the several expenses incurred by the petitioner for carrying out the work be reimbursed. The petitioner sought for reimbursement of the expenses which included the performance guarantee money and earnest money.

7. The record further reveals that on 20.04.2015, the Chief Medical Superintendent/LMG informed the petitioner that the earnest money and the performance guarantee have been forfeited.

8. The records further reveal that a representation was submitted by the petitioner which is undated.

9. Be that as it may, on 07.03.2022, a legal notice was issued to the respondents herein for refund of the amount as claimed by the petitioner in the representation dated 12.03.2015. This legal notice was replied by the respondents vide a communication dated 17.03.2022 wherein it was mentioned that letters were issued to the petitioner time to time by the respondents for improving the performance and executing the contract in terms with the contract agreement but as the petitioner failed, it resulted in termination of the contract. Further to that, it was mentioned that as the contract was terminated due to unsatisfactory performance, the performance guarantee money, EMD/security deposited was forfeited in terms with Clause 13(a), 13(f) and 13(g)(iii) of the contract agreement. 10. The peti