Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 56 (PAT)

Dharamveer Shukla v. Union of India

2012-01-12

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2012
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter no.C/374/BPU/Lease/Sone/2010 dated 14.07.2011 by which the Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur cancelled the tender for round trip leasing of 23 tons parcel van of train number 12553/12554 to the petitioner who was the highest bidder. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been a Category-A lease holder on Sonepur Division of East Central Railway having his office at Muzaffarpur and a Certificate of Registration dated 10.05.2010 had been issued to the petitioner by the railway authorities. He further stated that a Notice Inviting Tender was published in the daily newspaper “Dainik Jagran”, Muzaffarpur dated 01.02.2011 by which tenders for round trip leasing of 23 tons parcel vans of several trains including train number 12553/12554 bound to run between Barauni – New Delhi for three years had been invited from registered category-A lease holders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that petitioner filed his tender within time and when tenders were opened he was found to be the highest bidder for the said category. It is also averred that the highest bidders for other trains received Letter of Acceptance of their bids in July, 2011 but the authorities concerned sent letter dated 14.07.2011 informing the petitioner that his tender with respect to the aforesaid train number 12553/12554 was cancelled and he was directed to appear for getting back his earnest money. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the said treatment with petitioner, who was the highest bidder, was absolutely unjust and amounted to arbitrary exercise of power. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that from letter dated 04.02.2011 issued from the office of the D.R.M. (C), Sonepur, it appeared that earnest money deposit of Rs.50,000,00 in form of National Saving Certificates furnished along with tender was accepted and converted into security deposit. He also claimed that the respondents excuse that although the East Central Railway within which Barauni is situated had „No Objection in attaching the van but due to non-availability of No Objection from northern railway, within which New Delhi is situated, his tender was cancelled. He further submitted that it as the duty of the respondents to obtain No Objection from the northern railway and there was no laches on the part of the petitioner for which he was punished. 5. He further submitted that it as the duty of the respondents to obtain No Objection from the northern railway and there was no laches on the part of the petitioner for which he was punished. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the train in question covered two zones, namely the East Central Zone and Northern Zone and hence viability had to be sought from both the zones which included New Delhi. Furthermore the Northern Railway had sent letter dated 26.05.2011 to the East Central Railway expressing non-feasibility with respect to the train for which the petitioner had filed his tender and had given reasons for it in the said letter. In the said circumstances the respondents authorities could not finalize the tender of the petitioner and cancelled the entire tender due to non-availability of operational clearance required from New Delhi. 6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the other tenders stated by the petitioner were for other trains covering different zones for which operational clearances were available and there was no such objection and hence they were not cancelled. Thus, he averred that there was no discrimination as such. 7. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent that the impugned order cancelling the tender of the petitioner was issued by the respondent authorities on valid grounds which has been fully explained and proved by the respondents in this writ petition. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.