Mvvs Pkr Jv Ramendra Kuthi v. The Union of India and 5 Ors

ORDER

02.12.2024 Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. R. Majumdar. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC for all the respondents.

¶2The petitioner's prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to be issued to the respondent No.2, to take a decision as to whether an Insurance Surety Bond could be submitted in lieu of a Bank Guarantee for payment of Performance Guarantee, pursuant to Clause 16(4) of the General Clauses of the contract in Tender Notice No. CON/2024/FEB/03 dated 26.02.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NIT'). Page No.# 3/5

¶3The petitioner's counsel submits that in pursuance to the NIT for construction of an approach road, the petitioner was given Letter of Acceptance dated 06.11.2024 and it was asked to submit it's Performance Guarantee in terms of Clause 16(4) of the NIT.

¶4The petitioner's counsel submits that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance has issued various OMs dated 02.02.2024, 01.01.2024 & 24.09.2024 for acceptance of Insurance Surety Bond in lieu of a Bank Guarantee for payment of Performance Guarantee, with an aim free the working capital of contractors.

¶5The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted representations to the respondent authorities, to take a decision as to whether the Insurance Surety Bond could be accepted in lieu of Bank Guarantee. He submits that the 60 days period provided to the petitioner to submit it's Performance Guarantee will expire on 05.01.2025 and as such, a decision should be taken by the Railway Board (respondent No.2) as to whether the Insurance Surety Bond can take the place of a Bank Guarantee. He submits that in a similar case, i.e., WP(C) No.6061/2024 (SKPL-PKR JV Vs. The Union of India and 5 Ors.), which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2024, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner, with regard to the same subject matter and the Railway Board was to take the decision within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order. He accordingly submits that a similar order may be passed by this Court and in the meantime, the Performance Guarantee payable in terms of Clause 16(4)(b) of the NIT would be paid by the petitioner, to be replaced by an Insurance Surety Bond, if a decision was made in favour of the petitioner by the Railway Board. Page No.# 4/5

¶6Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC submits that the petitioner's representations have already been decided by the office of the General Manager(Con.), North East Frontier Railway vide letter dated 21.11.2024 and the petitioner has been asked to submit the Performance Guarantee as given in Clause 45 of Chapter-II/Clause 16(4)(b) of the NIT.

¶7I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶8A Coordinate Bench of this Court passed judgment and order dated

20.11.2024 in WP(C) No.6061/2024, directing the Railway Board to take a decision with regard to whether the Insurance Surety Bond could replace the Bank Guarantee as payment of Performance Guarantee. The same was to be decided within a period of 2 months and in the meantime, the petitioner therein was to make payment of the Performance Guarantee in terms of Clause 16(4)

(b) of the NIT.

¶9Though the petitioner's representations has been decided by the office of the General Manager, North-East Frontier Railway in the present case, this Court is of the view that the Railway Board should take a decision with regard to the issue raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court directs the Railway Board to take a decision, as to whether the Insurance Surety Bond can replace the Bank Guarantee for payment of Performance Guarantee in relation to the NIT issued in this case. The decision should be taken by the Railway Board within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall however have to comply with the payment of the Performance Guarantee in terms of Clause 16(4) of the NIT in the meantime. If a decision is taken by the Railway Board that the Insurance Surety Bond can Page No.# 5/5 replace the Bank Guarantee in this case, the respondent authorities shall allow the petitioner to replace the Bank Guarantee by an Insurance Surety Bond.

¶10The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010254762024 ooooooo undefined ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/6379/2024o MVVSoPKRoJVoRAMENDRAoKUTHIo COL.oCHOWMUHANIo,oKRISHNANAGAR,oAGARTALA,oWESToTRIPURAoDIST, TRIPURAoPIN-799001.o REP.oBYoONEoOFoITSoPARTNERoMVVoSATYANARAYANA,oAGEo67oYRS,o S/O-oLATEoMoMUTYALAoRAO,o R/O-o6-1-136/5/A,oMEHERoNIVAS,oBALRAMoCOLONY,oWALKERoTOWN,o PADMARAONAGAR,oSECUNDRABAD,oP.O-oMUSHEERABAD,oDIST-o HYDERABAD,oPIN-500020 VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo5oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoINDIA,oMINISTRYoOFo RAILWAYS,o21oRAILoBHAWANoMARG,oNEWoDELHI-01 2:THEoRAILWAYoBOARD oREP.oBYoMEMBERoINFRA o21 oRAILoBHAWANoMARG oNEWoDELHI-01 3:THEoGENERALMANAGERo(CONSTRUCTION) oN.FoRAILWAYo(CON) oMALIGAON oGUWAHATI-11 oDIST-oKAMRUPo(M) oASSAM 4:THEoPRINCIPALoFINANCEoADVISORANDoCAO/ o(CON) oMALIGAON oGUWAHATI-11 Page No.# 2/5 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 5:THE CAO II CON N.F RAILWAY (CON) MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER /CON/8/MLG N.F RAILWAY (CON) MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, MRS R DEKA,MR. R MAJUMDAR,MS. J GHOSH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA