M. Katju, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Sudain Narain, J.) dated 17-8-1999 copy of which is Annexure 17 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus to the appropriate authority under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 and pay compensation to the petitioner for the loss suffered due to cancellation of his contract.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned judgment. The facts of the case are mentioned in detail in the impugned judgment and hence need not be repeated. The contract in question was for conversion of 35 kms. Railway track from meter gauge to broad gauge. The petitioner had submitted a tender but he did not furnish the bank guarantee as was required. He was asked by the letter of Chief Engineer dated 27-3-1996 to submit bank guarantee within 15 days but he did not do so. Hence a letter was issued from the office of the Chief Administrative Officer intimating to the petitioner that provisional acceptance letter dated 27-3-1996 and the letter dated 2-2-1996 have been withdrawn. The petitioner asked for expenses on the ground that it had incurred expenses but was not permitted to perform the contract work. He also requested that the matter be referred for the arbitration.
(3.) The stand of the respondents was that the petitioner did not submit the performance guarantee and there was no concluded contract. In the absence of any such contract the petitioner was not entitled to enforce Clause 64 of the arbitration agreement.;