Judgment Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. Petitioner/appellant isa company dealing with the business of washing the soiled linen blankets and other clothes and they were awarded contracts for supply of bed rolls to the passengers in various trains by the Railways. As per the contracts, the petitioner has to supply bed rolls to all the passengers traveling in A/c 2 tier and A/c 3 tier coaches for a sum of Rs.19.50 towards cost of one bed roll. According to the Railways, the total requirement of bed rolls per day is approximately 12,000 and the contract of the petitioner for the following 13 trains accounts for approximately 6800 bed rolls per day, which is nearly 50% of the quantity: 2. According to the petitioner, since in the tender form, the first respondent had made it very clear that the petitioner has to supply the bed rolls agreeing to the specifications and should also have a washing unit/infrastructure, automated mechanized laundry which are subject to the inspection by the railway officials, he had invested more than a sum of Rs.4 crores for installation of the imported modern high quality automated mechanized laundry machine and apart from that, he had also invested huge sum in purchasing bedrolls to suit the specifications of the respondents and he had also imported machineries from U.S.A. and Europe countries besides recruiting about 250 persons for the purpose of honouring the contract and provided uniform for all these staff members by spending huge amounts. 3. While so, pursuant to the budget speech made by the Honourable Minister for Railways on the floor of Parliament and pursuant to the decision of the Railway Board, communicated to all the General Managers, by the proceeding in No.2009/M(C)/165/6, dated 17.12.2009, the respondents have published a tender notification dated 19.5.2010, calling for tenders for 'Turnkey contract for the work of collection of soiled linen from AC coaches, washing in mechanized laundry, supply and loading of washed linen into AC coaches at MAS (Chennai Central) and MS (Chennai Egmore) including supply and installation of plant/equipment/related infrastructure and operation for 10 years period at Basin Bridge Coaching Depot (BBQ) and distribution of linen in nominated trains starting from Chennai Central (MAS)/Chennai Egmore (MS) stations of Chennai Division.' 4. Aggrieved by the action of the Railways in issuing the above tender notification, the petitioner has come forward to file W.P.No.5563 of 2011 contending that during the subsistence of the contract in his favour, issuance of fresh tender by the Railways is illegal and need to be quashed. It has further been stated by the petitioner that as per the terms of contract, entered into between himself and the first respondent, the arbitration clause enables the parties to refer a dispute or difference between themselves in respect of construction or operations of the contract to an arbitrator; that in the case in hand, the second respondent, under the guise of floating new tender, directly tried to interfere with the operation of the existing agreement between the petitioner and the first respondent which would result in breach of terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent; that there is a subsisting contract between the petitioner and the first respondent and parallel impugned tender was floated when there is a subsisting contract, and hence, the petitioner filed O.A.Nos.704 to 713 of 2010 before this Court, invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, wherein an ad-interim injunction was granted by this Court, directing the respondent that no work orders should be issued; that the respondent tried to subvert the contract by inviting tenders even when the agreements were subsisting and since the agreements were subsisting and date as to when the entrustment of work would take place was not stated in the tender, the petitioner was prevented from participating in the said tender due to his subsisting contract. 5. 5. According to the petitioner if the tender stated that work orders would be issued after expiry of the subsisting contracts with the respondents, certainly, he would have applied for the same and since the impugned tender did not refer to any such date on which the work orders will be issued and appears as an attempt to discharge his subsisting contracts, he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act wherein injunction was granted and news spread in the market about his litigation and many of the contractors fearing for litigation did not participate in the tender and felt that the impugned tender is actually not commercially viable tender and will not fructify and therefore, abstained from participation in the tender and hence there is no healthy competition; that had the impugned tender was floated after expiry of the respective contracts, any prudent man would have certainly participated in the tender process. The said writ petition was admitted by a learned single Judge of this Court on 4.3.2011. 6. Thereafter, on 7.4.2011, the petitioner has again came forward to file another writ petition in W.P.No.9158 of 2011, challenging the Letter of Acceptance issued in the name of the seventh respondent therein and praying to discharge the said Letter of Acceptance. In this writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that after the interim order passed in O.A.Nos.704 to 713 of 2010, the second respondent filed a counter-affidavit giving an undertaking that they would not interfere with the subsisting contract of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever and that the impugned tender would take effect only after conclusion of the petitioner's consent and recording the said undertaking the said O.As. were disposed of by this Court on 28.3.2011; that when this Court has issued Rule NISI, the respondents ought to have submitted the entire Tender file to the Court and ought not to have laid their hands on the impugned tender dated 17.5.2010; but, after giving an undertaking that they will not interfere with the contract, surprisingly, the second and third respondents have issued the impugned Letter of Acceptance in respect of impugned tender to the 7th respondent and hence the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt; that the manner in which the respondents 2 and 3 hurried through the impugned Tender after admission of the W.P.No.5563 of 2011 will establish that the respondents 2 and 3 are bent upon in eliminating the petitioner and favouring the seventh respondent, who does not even possess technical expertise and experience in the field for which the tender has been floated and in spite of the undertaking given before the Court in O.A.Nos.704 to 713 of 2010 and the pendency of W.P.No.5563 of 2011, the respondents 2 and 3 had processed and issued the Letter of Acceptance dated 1.4.2011, which also squarely hinders the execution of the subsisting contract by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that since his last contract is active and subsisting till the year 2012, the respondents' latest order awarding Letter of Acceptance to a third party/the7th respondent is nothing but interfering with the petitioner's peaceful performance of his subsisting contract. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that since his last contract is active and subsisting till the year 2012, the respondents' latest order awarding Letter of Acceptance to a third party/the7th respondent is nothing but interfering with the petitioner's peaceful performance of his subsisting contract. 7. A common counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents/Railways stating that the present tender was floated on Build-Own-Operate-Transfer basis (BOOT model) for ensuring proper and good quality supply of bed rolls to the rail passengers, who are travelling in AC compartments of trains originating from Chennai Central and Chennai Egmore Railway Stations; that at present, in Chennai area, the total requirement of bed rolls per day is approximately 12,000 and the contract for 13 trains available with the petitioner accounts for approximately 6,800 bed rolls per day, which is nearly 50% of the quantity and since 50% of the petitioner's contracts are expiring by June 2011, under clause 3.35 of the new tender, it has been promised to provide only 50% of the quantity in the first year to the successful tender, further ensuring that the existing contracts with the petitioner would not be disturbed till the expiry of the said contracts. It is their case that since no stay order has been passed by this Court in the writ petition, they are not barred from proceeding with the issuance of Letter of Acceptance to the 7th respondent. 8. The seventh respondent also filed a separate counter affidavit narrating the events of his emerging as a successful bidder. He also submitted that after the award of Letter of Acceptance to him, he has commenced operations, by spending huge amounts and also employing about 200 persons and would pray to protect his interest, by dismissing the writ petitions. 9. Along with W.P.No.9158 of 2011, the petitioner also filed a petition in M.P.No.2 of 2011, praying to grant interim stay of the impugned Letter of Acceptance and while admitting the said writ petition on 7.4.2011, a learned single Judge of this Court has granted an interim order of stay. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 6/authorities have filed a vacate stay petition in M.P.No.3 of 2011. Taking up both the petitions together, a learned single Judge of this Court, by the common order dated 27.4.2011, has ordered as follows: "7. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 6/authorities have filed a vacate stay petition in M.P.No.3 of 2011. Taking up both the petitions together, a learned single Judge of this Court, by the common order dated 27.4.2011, has ordered as follows: "7. Admittedly, the petitioner has been given contract in the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 in respect of thirteen trains stated above and the period of contract in respect of eight trains which is due to expire in April or May or June, 2011 shall be extended till 1.10.2011, even according to the Railways. However, that will not stand in the way of the Railways in proceeding with the contract, which is stated to have been awarded in favour of the seventh respondent, in respect of the trains other than the thirteen trains in respect of which the contract subsists in favour of the petitioner and is to be continued upto 1.10.2011 in respect of eight trains. In such view of the matter, it is clarified that the order of interim stay is restricted only in respect of the thirteen trains stated above, in respect of which contract subsists in favour of the petitioner. The respondents 1 to 6 (Railways) and the seventh respondent are at liberty to proceed pursuant to the letter of acceptance and to do further work in respect of trains other than the thirteen trains and such award of contract to the seventh respondent shall be subject to the final order to be passed in the writ petition." 10. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner has come forward to prefer Writ Appeals 796 and 797 of 2011. Since both the writ appeals are directed against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge, a request has been made on behalf of either side before us to take up the main writ petitions themselves for disposal as it would solve many a problem between the parties. Accordingly, we have taken up all these matters together for combined hearing and common disposal. 11. Heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/Railways and Mr. V. Vijayashankar, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent. 12. All the counsel have argued the case based on the respective pleadings of the parties. 13. 11. Heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/Railways and Mr. V. Vijayashankar, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent. 12. All the counsel have argued the case based on the respective pleadings of the parties. 13. On a complete scrutiny of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the counsel for all the parties, we are able to see that when the contracts with the petitioner are specifically time bounded, expiring on a particular day in each of the contracts, the Railways have not mentioned the date of commissioning of the work for the successful tenderer in the impugned tender. No doubt, the petitioner had not submitted his tender, though the respondents have contended that he participated in the pre-bid meetings. As the contract period of the petitioner was subsisting and since in the impugned tender, no details as to the commencement of the contract was mentioned, there is every justification in the petitioner not submitting his tender, as it would send wrong signals to the railway administration. Had in the notification itself, the railways made a clear mention of the date of commencement of the contract period, the petitioner would not have hesitated to participate in the tender process, of course, if it is after expiry of his subsisting contract periods. We are unable to appreciate the action of the respondents/Railways in issuing a fresh tender, during subsistence of contract period with the petitioner that too without specifying the date of commencement of the contract and thus creating a confusion in the mind of the existing contractor as to whether he should participate in the tender process or not. 14. An explanation has been offered on the part of the respondents/Railways that by clause 3.35 of the tender, they have ensured that the existing contracts with the petitioner would not be disturbed till the expiry of the said contracts. To appreciate this factor, we shall now extract hereunder the said clause: "The quantity of bedroll and other washing items as shown is only an approximate figure and it can vary on day to day basis or on month to month basis or on year to year basis. To appreciate this factor, we shall now extract hereunder the said clause: "The quantity of bedroll and other washing items as shown is only an approximate figure and it can vary on day to day basis or on month to month basis or on year to year basis. In the 1st year of operation, quantity of about 5 ton per day may be given depending on the successful commissioning trails and in the 2nd year quantity will be increased to 10 tons/day depending upon the performance in the 1st year. A full quantity of 12 ton can be expected from 3rd year. The period of 10 years can be extended further for covering of the short quantity offered in the initial year." 15. A reading of the above clause would make it very clear that there is no whisper about the existing contracts in the said clause. The other explanation offered on the part of the Railways that during pre-bid conference attended to by the petitioner also, they have made it clear that the existing contracts with the petitioner would not be disturbed till the expiry of the said contracts, does not at all convince us in view of the fact that the same has not been reflected anywhere in the tender published by the Railways. By introducing confusing clauses to the tender and trying to draw a different interpretation to the clauses of the tender, the respondents are driving the parties to litigation, like the one in hand. 16. Though we are not able to accept the argument advanced on the part of the petitioner that since Rule NISI has been issued in W.P.No.5563 of 2011, the respondents should have awaited the result of the writ petition, for the simple reason that no order of stay has been passed by this Court, we cannot affix our seal of approval for the action of the respondents in hurrying to issue the letter of acceptance in favour of the 7th respondent, thus dragging him also to the litigation, particularly during the period of subsistence of contract period with the petitioner and interpreting the clauses of the tender in their own way (even though a plain reading of the said clauses would convey a different meaning, other than the one being interpreted by the respondents). 17. 17. In all fairness, the respondents should have indicated in the tender about the subsistence of contract in some trains and the dates of completion of the contract periods of the same and further making it clear that the existing contractors will not be disturbed till the completion of their contracts. Though, as stated supra, the respondents have come forward with the statement in these writ petitions that they will not disturb the petitioner during the contract period, as the same has not been included in the conditions of tender and since we are of the considered opinion that the offers of the tender cannot be changed in the midway, the said statement made on the part of the respondents will not come to their rescue. 18. If the terms of the tender are clear as now altered in the Letter of Acceptance dated 1.4.2011, definitely, the petitioner and other contractors would have participated in the tender process. 19. We also want to point out that though in Clause 4(A) of the Tender, dealing with 'period of contract', it has been mentioned that installation and commissioning of laundry is 'five months from the date of Letter of Acceptance', there is complete variation with regard to the said period of commissioning in the Letter of Acceptance, dated 1.4.2011, available at Page No.419 of the typed set of papers filed before us, wherein the time has been mentioned as six months. For better appreciation we extract hereunder the said clause: "The mechanized laundry including ancillary equipment and utilities is to be commissioned in all respects within a period of six months from the date of issue of LOA so as to be able to commence the work of washing/ ironing/ packaging/ transportation of linen with Railways failing which contract will be terminated and EMD will be forfeited as per para 3.22 as per general conditions of contract." (emphasis by us) 20. During the course of arguments, it has also been brought to our notice that the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) issued an Order No.2011/LML/18/17, dated 30.3.2011, wherein the Railway Board has mentioned that: "A policy with regard to transfer or alienation of land held by the Government or statutory bodies is under finalization by Government of India. During the course of arguments, it has also been brought to our notice that the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) issued an Order No.2011/LML/18/17, dated 30.3.2011, wherein the Railway Board has mentioned that: "A policy with regard to transfer or alienation of land held by the Government or statutory bodies is under finalization by Government of India. In the meanwhile, it has been decided that specific approval of Cabinet shall be sought in each case of long term lease of Railway land. Strict compliance of the instructions should be ensured." 21. Just a day after issuance of the above guidelines of the Government of India, the respondents have issued the impugned Letter of Acceptance dated 1.4.2011 in favour of the 7th respondent, allotting the land at Basin Bridge on long-lease, without even reconsidering the issue of such long lease, in the teeth of policy decision of the Ministry of Railways. Even on this account, we find the action of the respondents/railways arbitrary and violative of their own guidelines. 22. The learned senior counsel for the petitoner has argued that the authorities at the helm of affairs of the respondents/railways have acted with a malafide intention to help the 7th respondent and has relied on many judgments of the Honourable Apex Court to bring home the point that such malafide action would vitiate the action of the respondents, in issuing the Letter of Acceptance in favour of the 7th respondent. However, we do not propose to go into the said aspect of the matter, in view of the fact that we are quashing not only the tender but also the subsequent letter of acceptance granted in favour of the 7th respondent, in the light of the glaring legal defects committed by the railways in issuing the impugned tender and the subsequent letter of acceptance, pointed out supra. 23. Though the seventh respondent has submitted before us various arguments to permit him to go on with the contract, in view of the glaring defects right from the stage of issuance of tender by the respondents, we do not propose to go into all such aspects. However, we make it clear that the seventh respondent is also at liberty to participate in the fresh tender to be issued by the respondents. In the result, Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are allowed. However, we make it clear that the seventh respondent is also at liberty to participate in the fresh tender to be issued by the respondents. In the result, Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue fresh tender notification, keeping in mind the observations made by us in this judgment, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No doubt, the seventh respondent is also at liberty to participate in the tender process. The respondents 1 and 2 shall refund the amount, if any paid/deposited by the seventh respondent with them, pursuant to the impugned Letter of Acceptance. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.