Sts Infracon Limited Through Its Authrosed Signatory Shri Lakshmi Narayan Pradhan vs The Union Of India
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29584
1
W.P. NO. 42306/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
th
ON THE 12 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 42306 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020407312026
STS INFRACON LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHROSED
SIGNATORY SHRI LAKSHMI NARAYAN PRADHAN
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sushant Kuamr –Advocate on behalf of Ms.Anita Jain-
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain – A.S.G with Shri Romesh Dave –Dy.S.G for
the respondents.
______________________________________________________
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:26:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29584
2
W.P. NO. 42306/2026
ORDER
Per: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai :
1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The petitioner is challenging the seven days
notice dated 29.09.2026 and the forty-eight hours notice dated
09.10.2026 issued by the Western Railway. The petitioner seeks a
direction to the Railway authorities to consider its response dated
30.09.2026. The petitioner also prays for a personal hearing and
protection from coercive actions like termination of the contract.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The Western Railway awarded a contract to the petitioner for
25 KV AC OHE work between Katwara and Jhabua section. The
contract was awarded through a Letter of Acceptance dated 09.02.2024
for a total value of about twelve crores. The original date of
completion was fixed as 09.05.2025. The parties also signed a formal
contract agreement on 07.03.2024 to govern the terms of the work.
3. The petitioner started the preparatory works and submitted a
proposed execution plan to the Railway. According to the petitioner,
the work could not progress properly because the Railway did not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:26:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29584
3
W.P. NO. 42306/2026
provide the necessary drawings and clear sites on time. The Railway
extended the time limit for completion twice without imposing any
penalty. The final extended date for completion was fixed as
30.09.2026.
4. Before the extended time could expire, the Railway issued a
seven days notice on 29.09.2026. The Railway stated that the progress
of the work was very poor and the petitioner had failed to deploy
proper resources. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on
30.09.2026 asking for a joint site inspection and a personal hearing.
After some exchange of letters, the Railway issued a final forty-eight
hours notice on 09.10.2026 to terminate the contract.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in
the project is entirely the fault of the Railway. It is argued that the
Railway failed to hand over clear sites and provide necessary
engineering drawings on time. The counsel argues that the Railway
cannot blame the petitioner for the slow progress when the basic
requirements were not met by the department itself.
6. The petitioner further submits that issuing termination notices
just before the extended deadline is completely unfair. It is argued that
the petitioner remains ready and willing to complete the balance work
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:26:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29584
4
W.P. NO. 42306/2026
on the available sites. The counsel submits that the Railway had agreed
to a joint verification of the site but suddenly issued the forty-eight
hours notice. Therefore, the action of the Railway is against the
principles of natural justice.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
strongly opposes the petition. The counsel submits that the writ
petition is not maintainable because it involves purely contractual
disputes. It is argued that the petitioner has a clear alternate remedy
under Clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract. This clause
provides a complete mechanism for conciliation of disputes for
contracts valued under fifty crore rupees.
8. The respondents further submit that the petitioner failed to
show adequate progress on the sites that were already handed over.
The counsel relies on the letters dated 13.08.2026 and 28.09.2026 to
show that many work fronts were available to the petitioner. It is
argued that the petitioner completely failed to procure basic materials
like cantilevers which delayed the entire work. Therefore, the Railway
was forced to issue the notices to protect public interest.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:26:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29584
5
W.P. NO. 42306/2026
9. This Court has carefully examined the record and considered
the detailed submissions made by both parties.
10. We must first examine whether this writ petition is
maintainable. The contract agreement contains specific provisions for
resolving disputes between the parties. Clause 63 of the General
Conditions of Contract provides for conciliation of disputes where the
contract value is fifty crore rupees or less. The present contract is
valued at about twelve crore rupees. Therefore, the petitioner has a
clear and agreed alternate remedy available under the contract itself.
11. The petitioner claims that the Railway did not hand over the
required work sites and delayed the engineering drawings. On the other
hand, the Railway has firmly stated in its letters dated 13.08.2026 and
28.09.2026 that sufficient sites were available. The Railway claims that
eighty-seven foundation work fronts and one hundred seventy-nine
mast erection fronts were ready. The Railway also states that the
petitioner failed to procure essential materials like cantilevers.
12. These are highly disputed questions of facts. To decide who
is right, one would need to examine site registers, daily progress
reports, and measurement books. This Court in a writ petition cannot
calculate the exact chainage of available land or check whether cement
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:26:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29584
6
W.P. NO. 42306/2026
and steel were present at the site. Such detailed factual inquiries can
only be done by an arbitrator or a conciliator under the agreed contract.
13. The petitioner has heavily relied on the Railway's letter dated
06.10.2026 to claim that a joint verification was agreed upon. The
petitioner argues that the forty-eight hours notice issued on 09.10.2026
was sudden and unfair. However, the record shows that the Railway
had repeatedly warned the petitioner about the slow progress. The
Railway's detailed communication dated 28.09.2026 clearly answers
all the excuses raised by the petitioner.
14. The letter dated 28.09.2026 shows clear application of mind
by the Railway authorities. They have pointed out the specific failures
of the petitioner under Clauses 19 and 25 of the General Conditions of
Contract. The Railway clearly informed the petitioner that they must
work on the available sites without waiting for the entire land to be
cleared. Therefore, we cannot accept the submission that the Railway
acted without giving any reasons.
15. The petitioner has also argued that the time extensions were
granted without any penalty, which shows that the Railway was at
fault. The record indicates that extensions were granted under Clause
17A(iii) of the contract. However, as pointed out by the Railway, this
clause requires the contractor to make their best efforts to complete the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:26:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29584
7
W.P. NO. 42306/2026
work on available sites. An extension of time does not wash away the
duty to deploy proper manpower and materials.
16. The petitioner is demanding a personal hearing before any
action is taken under the contract. In commercial contracts, the rights
and duties of the parties are governed strictly by the agreement. Clause
62 of the contract gives the procedure for termination, which includes
giving written notices. The contract does not provide for a formal
court-like hearing before terminating the work. Since the Railway has
considered the written replies, there is no violation of natural justice.
17. The petitioner has also prayed for protection against the
encashment of the performance bank guarantee. The petitioner has
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
2025 INSC 640, . However, the law is well settled that a bank
guarantee is an independent contract between the bank and the
beneficiary. Courts do not stop the encashment of bank guarantees
unless there is clear fraud or irretrievable injustice.
18. In the present case, the petitioner has not pleaded or shown
any fraud by the Railway authorities. The dispute is simply about who
caused the delay and who breached the contract. Such common
contractual disputes do not create any special right to stop the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:26:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29584
8
W.P. NO. 42306/2026
encashment of a bank guarantee. Therefore, the prayer to protect the
bank guarantee or the security deposit cannot be accepted by this
Court.
19. The High Court cannot issue a direction to the Railway to
rewrite the work schedule or accept the conditions proposed by the
petitioner. The Railway is executing a public infrastructure project. It
is the duty of the Railway authorities to monitor the progress and take
action if they find the contractor is failing. Stopping the Railway from
using its contractual powers would seriously delay a project of public
importance.
20. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit in the
writ petition. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any arbitrary
action or violation of constitutional rights by the respondents. The
entire case revolves around disputed facts and contractual terms. The
petitioner is free to raise all these issues, including claims for damages,
before the appropriate forum as provided in the contract.
21. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:26:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29584
9
W.P. NO. 42306/2026
(Subodh Abhyankar) (Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge Judge
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
5:26:03 PM