Patna High Court - Orders
Rama Ranjan Prasad Singh vs The Union Of India & Ors. on 1 December, 2009
Author: S.P.Singh
Bench: S.P.Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.3364 of 2009
RAM CHANDRA YADAV & ORS.
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
with
MJC No.3365 of 2009
RAMA RANJAN PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-----------
For the petitioners : Mr. Amitabh Sohan, Advovate
For the I.R.C.T.C. : Mr. A. Amanullah, Advocate
2 1.12.2009Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing on behalf of IRCTC.
Both these applications have been taken together as they arise out of the similar cases namely C.W.J.C.No.9404 of 2009 and C.W.J.C.No.10504 of 2009 which were heard and disposed of by common order.
In the aforesaid two writ petitions, the petitioners prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide stalls to the petitioners in the light of Clause 3.2 under heading Infrastructure of the Railway Board‟s Revised Catering Policy 2005 No.2005/TG/III/600/5 dated 21.12.2005. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the tender issued by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. Dated 6.7.2009.
This court after hearing the counsel for the parties disposed of the aforesaid two writ petitions by order dated 9.9.2009(wrongly typed as 7.9.2009) and in last two paragraphs of the order it was observed as follows:
"The issue which arises for consideration is whether 2 the tender notice published by IRCTC is in teeth of Clause 3.2 of the Revised Catering Policy 2005. In this connection it would be relevant to notice the contents of clause 3.2 which inter alia provides that the mobile trolleys at „A‟, „B‟and „C‟ category of stations should be progressively reduced. For achieving the aforesaid object, the trolleys should be gradually converted into stalls and new stalls be first distributed to trolley owners. Thus, the policy of the Government is to gradually eliminate trolleys at „A‟, „B‟ and „C‟category stations and rehabilitate the trolley owners by first setting the stalls in their favour. The mode of allotment of new stall to these trolley vendors could be by way of tender as stipulated under clause 10.5 to fetch a competitive price.
In my view, the petitioners of both the cases should first raise their grievance before the respondent no.3, the Group General Manager, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd., Eastern Zone Office, 3, Kolkata. In case petitioners file such petitions before the respondent no.3, within 3 weeks from today with a copy of this order, he would dispose of the representations preferably within a period of three weeks thereof. Till then the tender papers filed by the aspirants will not be opened and considered, so far as it relates to stations where petitioners run their trolleys."
It appears that the order in the aforesaid writ petitions was passed on 9.9.2009 but due to some typographical mistake the date of order has been written as 7.9.2009, as a result the chirkut filed by the petitioners for obtaining certified copy of 3 the order became futile. The petitioners in absence of certified copy could not file their representations before the Group General Manager, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd., Eastern Zone Office, 3, Kolkata within three weeks from the date of passing of the order and as such the prohibition imposed by this court on opening of tender papers filed by intending aspirants lapsed on 28.9.2009.
Mr. A.Amanullah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of IRCTC submits that as the respondents did not receive any representation from petitioners within three weeks, they proceeded with the auction notice thereafter. He submits that reliefs prayed for by the petitioners were confined to railway platforms of Begusarai, Muzaffarpur, Khagaria & Naugachia. He further submits that already 2 out of 5 stalls meant for Begusarai Railway Station; 3 out of 8 stalls meant for Khagaria Railway Station; 7 out of 14 stalls meant for Muzaffarpur Railway Station and 1 out of 6 stalls meant for Naugachia Railway station were settled.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents ought not to have proceeded with the tender process as the delay in filing the representation did not occur for the fault of the petitioners.
Though the submission of the petitioners may have substance, but as third party rights have already been created, it would not be appropriate to unsettle such right. However, it 4 would be open to the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid settlement.
It would appear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the IRCTC that still substantial numbers of stalls in the aforesaid Railway stations have remained unsettled and in respect of them the petitioners may file representation along with a copy of the order of this court.
I find that the stand taken by the counsel for the IRCTC is quite fair. Further more, I also find that the petitioners cannot be faulted for not making representation in time and as such these modification applications for extending the time granted by order dated 9.9.2009 (wrongly typed as 7.9.2009) is extended by four weeks for filing representation. In case such representation is filed within four weeks from today, then in continuance with the observations made in the earlier order dated 9.9.2009, the respondent no.3, the Group General Manager, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, Eastern Zone Office, 3, Kolkata would dispose of the same within a period of four weeks thereof in light of the observations made in the order dated 9.9.2009. The orders passed on 9.9.2009, which has been wrongly typed as 7.9.2009 in main writ applications will be read as 9.9.2009.
Till then, as ordered earlier, the tender paper filed by other aspirants will not be opened so far as it relates to the current existing slots of stall as stated in Annexure-C (Page-8) of counter 5 affidavit of IRCTC filed in their applications.
With the aforesaid directions, these applications are allowed to the extent indicated above.
(S.P.Singh,J) KHAN