RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order No. Legal/2015/102 dated 10.08.2015 (Annexure-34 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited rejecting the representation of the petitioner to permit it to continue the work of loading and transportation of coal as per work order/letter of award dated 18.11.2006. Further prayer has been made for quashing 2the letter as contained in memo no. GM(R)/Dal/BG/07-08/5545-47 dated 10.11.2017, whereby the respondent-CCL has requested the Bank of India, Phusro Bazar Branch, Bokaro to encash the bank guarantees submitted by the petitioner and credit the same in its bank account maintained at S.B.I, Main Branch, Daltonganj.
(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that a tender notice bearing No. CCL/CGM(T)/Rajhara/2006/267 dated 23/25.08.2006 was issued under the signature of the respondent no. 4 the Chief General Manager (Transport), CCL inviting sealed tenders from reputed and experienced transport contractors for transportation of coal from Tetariakhar Open Cast Mines to Dakra Manual Siding for a period of nine months. Pursuant to the said tender notice, the petitioner submitted its tender in the prescribed manner. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 vide letter no. CCL/CGM(T)/Rajhara/06/114 dated 15/16.11.2006 communicated the decision of the Board of CCL to the respondent no. 5 the General Manager (Rajhara), CCL regarding approval of the recommendation of the Tender Committee to award the work in favour of the petitioner for a period of nine months. Consequently, the respondent no. 6 vide letter No. GM(R)/Dal/06-07/WO/CT/TTK/2065(a) dated 18.11.2006 issued work order/letter of award in respect of three works of transportation for a total value of Rs.6,38,35,000/-. According to the petitioner, it faced great difficulty in execution of the work and on the said issue, it repeatedly wrote letters to the respondent no. 8 about the miserable condition of the road as well as disturbances created by the local villagers and requested to resolve the said issue for enabling the petitioner to carry out the work. The respondent no. 6 vide letter dated 13.07.2007 intimated the petitioner that a parallel agency was engaged for transportation of coal, however, no such letter of engagement was served to it. The petitioner vide letter dated 17.08.2007 requested the respondent no. 5 to compensate the loss suffered by it due to providing the work to another agency. As per the petitioner, the other agency also did not complete the work which shows malafide action on the part of the respondent. The respondent-CCL vide letter dated 03.11.2007 intimated the petitioner that the bank guarantees deposited by it would be encashed and the amount due to CCL shall be adjusted. Subsequently, the respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 06.11.2007 informed the petitioner that explanation dated 17.08.2007 submitted by it was considered and found to be incorrect. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 vide memo no. GM(R)/Dal/BG/07-08/5545-47 dated 10.11.2007 asked the respondent no. 7 to encash the bank guarantees of the petitioner and credit the amount in favour of the respondent-CCL. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.11.2011 with a direction to the respondent-CCL that if the petitioner files a representation, the same shall be decided by the concerned authority on providing an opportunity of hearing to it within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation, however, vide letter dated 10/07.09.2012, the General Manager (C.M.C) intimated the petitioner that its representation was found without merit except the issue of additional transportation cost deducted due to engagement of parallel agency which was being communicated to the concerned area for adjustment. The petitioner again filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6275 of 2012 which was allowed vide order dated 15.07.2015 with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to give personal hearing to the petitioner on 23.07.2015 and to pass a reasoned order. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the representative of the petitioner appeared before the respondent no. 2 and presented its case, however, vide order dated 10.08.2015, the respondent no. 2 rejected the petitioner s claim.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 while passing the impugned order did not consider the relevant documents as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is further submitted that even a parallel agency engaged by the respondent-CCL was given extension, whereas the petitioner being the main contractor was not given extension of a single day. Though the parallel agency was granted extension up to 31.03.2008, it transported coal to the extent of 26990.060 M.T as against the target of 90,000.00 M.T. The decision of the management to forfeit performance security/encashment of bank guarantees may be technically correct, but the same is extremely harsh considering the prevailing situation of the project and that the parallel agency which was deployed at the higher rate could not even complete the contract and abandoned the work in the mid-way.;