Writ Petition No. 23590 of 2015. Case: Mirador Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 23590 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B.V. Subbaiah for Gogineni Krupachand, Advs. and For Respondents: L. Ravichander for Valluri Mohan Srinivas, Advs. |
| Judges | Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 226, 32 |
| Judgement Date | August 20, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.
-
The relief sought for in this writ petition may be first noticed, which is extracted hereunder:
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, (a) directing the Respondent No. 1 to desist from terminating the contract agreement dated 04-08-2010 vide agreement bearing No. C-34114-L195A-1/G6/CA-I/3404 and C-34114-L195A-1/G6/CA-II/3405 (b) to declare the action of the Respondent No. 1 to invoke the Bank guarantees given by the petitioner through the respondents 2 and 3 vide is numbers 2068412BG0000232, 2068412BG0000233, 2068412BG0000323, 2068412BG0000324, 2068412BG0000325, 0910314BG0000814/1303915BG0000140, 0910314BG0000815/1303915BG0000141 and 0910312BG0001166/63 in pursuance of the Contract Agreement dated 04-08-2010 as illegal, inequitable, bad and against the principles of natural justice and consequently restore the said Bank Guarantees, and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
-
When the matter was listed for admission, I had serious doubt whether such a relief can be sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when, admittedly, the relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent is governed by a contract dated 04.08.2010 and as to whether a Mandamus can be issued contrary to the terms of the contract. I had, therefore, requested Mr. B.V. Subbaiah, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, to make submissions on the aspect of maintainability first, particularly, as the first respondent appearing through caveat was also represented by Mr. L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel for the first respondent. Accordingly, both the learned senior counsel have made submissions and relied upon various case laws in support of their respective contentions. In view of the said preliminary issue calling for consideration, it is not necessary to dwell in detail on the merits of the case. I shall, therefore, refer to the pleadings and documents filed by the petitioner only to the extent necessary for the purpose of deciding the preliminary issue.
-
Petitioner, a private limited company and part of a Joint Venture with M/s. B.S. Limited, entered into a Contract Agreement dated 04.08.2010 for Tower Package D2 for 400 KV D/C (Quad) Wardha - Aurangabad T/L etc. with the first respondent. The said contract provided for scope and specifications of the work and all other details, which are listed under tender conditions and it is not in dispute that time for completion of the work was initially stipulated as 31.03.2013. Petitioner, however, states that on account of default and delay on the part of the first respondent, time for completion was extended by the first respondent initially up to 28.02.2015 and again up to 30.09.2015. Petitioner contends that it has already completed 90% of the work and only 10% of the work remains to be performed. As per the condition of the contract, various bank guarantees were furnished to the first respondent, which are alive. Petitioner states that though the time for completion was extended up to 30.09.2015, the first respondent invoked the bank guarantees and encashed the same. However, the date and details of such invocation are not mentioned in the affidavit. Apparently, alarmed by such development, petitioner apprehends that the contract may be terminated even before the expiry of the extended time and hence, has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid relief.
-
It would be noticed that apart from seeking a Mandamus to the first respondent to desist from terminating the contract, a further declaration is also sought that invocation of bank guarantees by the first respondent as illegal, inequitable and against principles of natural justice and consequently, restore the said bank guarantees.
-
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner refers to proceedings of the first respondent dated 02.04.2015 wherein provisional time extension for completion of the said work was granted up to 20.09.2015. The said proceedings, however, further states that the extension is subject to conditions stipulated therein such as, extension in time being without prejudice to the rights of the first respondent and obligations of the contractor; the right to levy liquidated damages and that time continues to be essence of the contractor etc. Learned senior counsel would also draw the attention of the Court to the notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial