A writ of mandamus cannot be issued for contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact without exhausting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

ORDER :

The present Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse the amounts payable to the petitioner towards price adjustment in terms of the Minutes of the meeting conducted by st the respondent Board on 14.06.2016 and the consequential order of the 1 respondent vide proceedings No.23217/Audit /2017 dated 20.04.2017, with regard to the agreement entered between the respondent board and the petitioner in CER/TWAD/MDU/No.22/2011-12/dated 30.12.2011.

2.Brief facts:

a. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing, laying and joining pipelines in relation to the infrastructure facilities, more particularly, drinking water supply projects, irrigation projects and sanitation and sewerage system.

b. The respondent board floated a tender for providing CWSS to 637 Rural habitations in Aruppukottai, kariapatti, Thiruchuli and Narikudi unions in Virudhunagar District with river Thamirabarani as source near Vallanadu vide Agreement dated 30.12.2011. The petitioner was successful in that Tender process called by the respondent and awarded the above Contract.

c. The Contract was to be executed within a period of 18 months from the date of its commencement, i.e., 30.12.2011. In other words, in terms of the Contract, the work ought to be completed on or before 30.06.2013. The Contract was however completed only on 31.05.2015. Thus, there was a delay of close to 28 months.

d. The petitioner claimed price adjustment for the extended period by placing reliance on Clause 51 of the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent Board.

e. The petitioner would submit that the delay in execution of the contract was due to the following reasons, all of which are according to the petitioner was attributable to the respondent viz.,

i) Delay in obtaining permission from National Highways Department.

ii) Land acquisition process.

iii) Change in design and scope of work by the respondent Board.

f. The petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent vide letter dated 24.02.2016, requesting payment of price adjustment for the extended period.

g. Pursuant to the above representation the 1st respondent constituted a Committee to re-solve the issue relating to price escalation. The Committee comprised of Authorities from TWAD Board including Finance Director, Engineer Director, Chief Audit Officer, etc., and Officials from Indian Hume Pipeline Company which is the petitioner herein. The Committee convened a meeting on 14.06.2016.

h. The Committee in the meeting dated 14.06.2016, worked out the price adjustment proposal during the extended period i.e., 01.07.2013 to 31.10.2014 as under:

i. Importantly, it was recorded that since the Contractor has agreed to the value of work done for price adjustment there is no further dispute in this matter and the Committee has no further issues / disputes to be resolved since the Executive Engineer concerned and the Chief Engineer, (I/C) Madurai agreed to consider the decision / suggestion arrived at during the meeting dated 14.06.2016.

j. The petitioner vide letter dated 17.01.2017 addressed to the 1 st respondent stated that despite the committee constituted by the 1st respondent and the petitioner having settled the issue with regard to price adjustment on 14.06.2016, however, the respondent is yet to pay the price adjustment to the petitioner in terms of the decision of the committee dated 14.06.2016.