RAMESHWAR DASS BISHAN DYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two petitioners. Second petitioner's the proprietor of the first petitioner. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution they seek an appropriate writ, order of direction commanding the respondents to appoint a regular handling contractor for their stock yard at Allahabad "in a time bound manner so that the appointment of the contractor is done on or before 31.3.1995". The stock yard belongs to the second respondent M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited. There are in all seven respondents. Petitioners also seek a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to refund to them the earnest money amount of Rs.50,000.00 along with penal interest at the rate of 24% per annum and then seek a declaration that the decision of the respondents considering annexures IV & IX to the writ petition as being mere clarifications to the tenders submitted by the petitioners and not the terms of the respondents to the tenders floated by the second respondent. These two annexures are respectively dated 11 May 1994 and 22 September 1994. Yet further prayers are that direction be issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate into the affairs of the respondents with regard to the award of handling of contract at Allahabad and to punish the officers found guilty on the basis of such investigation. A restraint order is also sought on the Steel Authority of India Limited, the second respondent, not to involve the officers found guilty by the C.B.I. on investigation into any public dealings by them.

(2.) Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset said that since the second respondent invited tenders on 18 August 1994 the first prayer would become infructuous. As to what happened regarding the floating of tenders prior to 18 August 1994 would not be relevant for our purpose. Annexure IV referred to above is of the period earlier to 18 August 1994 and again this is not relevant. It was submitted that in response to the tenders floated on 18 August 1994, five parties gave their offers and out of them two were found eligible. It is stated, by Annexure IX the petitioners represented against selection of these two parties and thereafter the respondents cancelled the tenders altogether and again called for fresh tenders on 20 February 1995. In these circumstances, Annexure IX also loses any significance though we have not gone into the question as to whether this letter amounts to clarification of the tenders submitted by the petitioners or amounted to furnishing of additional terms by them.

(3.) We also find that the petitioners filed a civil suit (Suit No. 2538/94) in this Court on 15 November 1994 claiming damages and injunction against respondents 2 to 7. Cause of action in the suit is stated to have arisen in their favour when the respondents took a decision on the file to cancel the tenders issued on 18 August 1994. The petitioners as plaintiffs claimed damages amounting to over Rs.50 lakhs and also sought declaration that they were eligible in every respect for award of handling contract in terms of the tender dated 18 August 1994. They also sought a declaration that the petitioners were eligible tenderers with the respondents. We are, thus, of the opinion that the reliefs now claimed in the writ petition could very well have been claimed in the civil suit which had been filed earlier and is pending in this Court.