9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 127 - HC - Indian LawsWrit of mandamus - release the payment of invoice raised for execution of work orders - respondent no.2 entering into sub-contracts with the petitioner company for manufacturing and supply of additional Berth (Middle Berth) for fitment of the same on longitudinal side of existing AC 3- Tier Railway Coaches and Sleeper Class Rail Coaches running within the jurisdiction of Southern Railway. Held that - The sub-contract in between the petitioner company and the respondent company was executed at the office of the petitioner company lying and situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. It is also not in disputes that the instruction dated august 27 and 28, 2010 were conducted by RITES Ltd.(A Government of India Enterprise) for giving inspection certificate to ascertain the quantity of longitudinal middle berth relating to payment for supply and retro fitment of the same took place within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. The above instruction referred to communication issued by the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway in his communication issued under memo no.V/M.CW/271.MB dated September 28, 2010. Therefore, the cause of action in part took place within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. It is a settled principles of law that if all parties are present before the court in a suit the same is maintainable. By virtue of the communication dated March 13, 2009 issued by the competent authority of the Railway Board the General Manager of All India Railways were informed amongst others, payment to the contracting agency might be made for the work already done till the issue of the notification regarding change a policy. Admittedly, the Railway Board alleged funds to the tune of Rs.6 cores in the final grant of 2010-11 for remittance to dues payable towards fitment of additional longitudinal berths in AC 3-tier and sleeper coaches. Also the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (C & W) issued a communication dated April 28, 2011 directed the Senior DMM/TVC to arrange clearing of the pending bills in connection with the aforesaid fitment of additional longitudinal railway berths. It is revealed from the certificate dated August 31, 2010 issued by the RITES Ltd., Government of India Enterprises that the claim of the petitioner of manufacturing the longitudinal middle berths under reference was genuine. The above claim was forwarded to the competent authority by the officer of the Southern Eastern Raillery for payment to the respondent no.1. The aforesaid admitted facts and circumstances leads to a conclusion that the petitioner company changed its position depending on the promise held by the respondent no.1 in the matter of manufacturing of fitment of longitudinal middle berths in 3-tier AC and Sleeper Railway Coaches of the Southern Railway. Admittedly, the respondent no.1 acted on the basis of the promise held by the Southern Railway. The Railway Board released the required fund for releasing the same for payment of longitudinal meddle berths. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is squarely applicable with regard to the claim of the petitioner company from the respondent no.1. It has been held hereinabove that all the parties before this court this is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of commanding the concerned respondents to release its fund for payment of the claim of the petitioner company therefore, directing the competent authority of the Southern Railway to release the fund allotted to it for payment towards the fitment of longitudinal berths in its Sleeper Class Railway Coaches on the basis of the claim of the respondent no.1 in its favour so far as the claim under reference is concerned within a period of two months from date. The respondent no.1 is directed to release the above amount in favour of the petitioner company within a month from the date of receipt of the same from the South Eastern Railway.
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction 2. Maintainability of the Writ Application 3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel 4. Release of Payment for Work Executed Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The respondent nos. 2 to 4 raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, arguing that the execution of the contract and the respondent authority's office were outside the territorial jurisdiction. However, the court found that the sub-contract between the petitioner company and the respondent no.1 was executed within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. The court also noted that instructions for ascertaining the status of the work contract took place within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. Referencing the decision of Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R. K. Mishra, the court held that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction, the High Court has jurisdiction. Therefore, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was dismissed. 2. Maintainability of the Writ Application: The respondents argued that the petitioner company was a stranger to the respondent nos. 2 and 4, and thus the writ application was not maintainable. The court, however, noted that the respondent no.1 was an instrumentality of the state and had entered into a contract with the petitioner company. The court held that since all parties were present before it, the writ application was maintainable. The court referenced the decision in Monghibai Vs. Cooverji Umersey, which states that once all parties are before the court, it can make the appropriate order. Hence, the objection regarding the maintainability of the writ application was dismissed. 3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The court observed that the petitioner company had acted upon the assurance given by the respondent no.1 and invested its funds for manufacturing longitudinal middle berths. The work was cancelled based on a policy decision by the Railway Board, without any fault on the part of the petitioner company or the respondent no.1. The Railway Board had communicated that payments should be made for the work already done till the change in policy. The court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied, as the petitioner company had changed its position based on the promise held by the respondent no.1. The court referenced the decision in Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt. Ltd. Meerut Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, which supports the application of promissory estoppel to state authorities. 4. Release of Payment for Work Executed: The court noted that the Railway Board had allocated funds for the payment of longitudinal middle berths and directed the Southern Railway to release the funds for the payment of the petitioner company's claim. The court directed the competent authority of the Southern Railway to release the funds within two months and instructed the respondent no.1 to release the amount to the petitioner company within a month of receiving the funds from the Southern Railway. The court thus disposed of the writ application, directing the release of the payment for the work executed by the petitioner company. Conclusion: The court dismissed the preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ application. It applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel and directed the Southern Railway to release the funds for the payment of the petitioner company's claim, thereby disposing of the writ application.
|
