ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deducting amounts towards District Mineral Foundation Fees and 2% State Mineral Exploration Trust from the running bills payable to the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary etc., and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to deduct 30% towards District Mineral Foundation Fees and 2% Trust charges.

This Court has heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.Aruna, standing counsel for the respondent-Railways.

As per the learned counsel, the petitioner (M/s.

KVRECPL-IRP Infra Tech (JV) before this Court is a contractor. Pursuant to tender notification of August, 2015, the contractor submitted a bid and is finalized in their favour. A letter of intent was issued to them in April, 2016. The petitioner commenced the work. However, in March, 2016, (which is after the submission of the tender and before its finalization), the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 14.03.2016 permitting the levy of certain charges which are now the subject matter of the dispute. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel points out that after the G.O. was issued, a letter dated 06.10.2016 was issued directing all the Heads of the departments to deduct the amounts which are now questioned in the writ petition. He also points out that further letters directed the respondents to pay the amount in the form of Demand Draft towards Managing Trustee of the District Mineral Foundation. Ultimately, the deductions started; leading to filing of the writ petition.

Learned counsel submits that these charges were imposed after the tender was submitted and therefore, it is his submission that the petitioner cannot be saddled with this additional expenditure. He relies upon clause 19.3 (a) to support his argument that if there is an increase in the seigniorage charges, after the last date of submission of tender, Railways agreed to reimburse additional charges also. Learned counsel in essence submits that as new charges which are being deducted are the seigniorage charges and are levied as a percentage of the seigniorage charges, the petitioner company cannot be made liable for this additional amount.

In reply to this, Smt.Aruna, learned standing counsel for the Railways, argued that as per clause 19.4, all additional amounts will be paid by the contractor only and the Railways are not liable to reimburse the same. It is also pointed out that District Mineral Foundation is a special charge and should be paid by the contractor only. Learned counsel for Railways argues that clause 19.3 and 19.4 are part and parcel of the agreement which is entered into by the petitioner. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner cannot claim any relief in this writ petition. It is also argued that clause 19.3 (a) is not applicable to the present case since it deals with works to be completed in the extended period also which are granted on administrative grounds etc. She points out that this levy is a fee, which is not included in the “seigniorage fee”. Therefore, the contention of the learned standing counsel is that clause 19.4 alone is applicable. She prays that the writ must be dismissed.

COURT:

This Court after considering the facts notices the following dates.

(1)Tender notification : 06.08.2015.

(2)Petitioner‟s bid : 04.19.2015.

(3)Opening of the bid : 03.02.2016 (4)Finalization of the bid : 21.04.2016 (5)Letter of acceptance : 28.04.2016.

The G.O.Ms.No.36 on the basis of which the additional amount is collected is issued on 14.03.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted this point to argue that by virtue of this G.O. of 14.03.2016, further amounts are to be collected.

Although this submission appears to be attractive, a closer reading of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short „the Act‟) and the conditions of the contract makes it clear that this is not the only way to decide this issue. The amounts that are being char