SANKARA NARAYANAN Vs. DIRECTOR, CATERING SERVICE RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ appeals relate to awarding of contract for running pantry car / mobile catering service in Train No. 6635/6636 (Ernakulam - Kuria) Netravathi Express by Southern Railway. Hence both appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) First, we may consider the fact in Writ Appeal No. 732/99 filed from O. P. No. 1822/99. By Ext. P - 1 public notice, dated 22nd September 1998 published in newspapers, dated 26th September 1998 Chief Commercial Manager invited applications from experienced professional caterers belonging to Scheduled Caste community for issue of licence for running the pantry car / mobile catering service. Conditions mentioned in Ext. P - 1 notice were:

(3.) It is averred that without issuing a public notice or fresh notification railway amended the terms of the notification with ulterior motives and respondents split the contract to four and awarded to Respondents 4 to 7 so; that none of the licensees is required to pay more than Rs. 3,00,000 as licence fee or security deposit. Had it been known that one need pay less than Rs. 3,00,000 as licence fee and security, petitioner and many others who did not apply in pursuance to Ext. P - 1 tender notification as they cannot afford to pay more than Rs. 10,00,000 together before starting the licence period would have applied. As per Clause.704 of the Indian Railway Code for Traffic (Commercial) Department catering licences can be awarded only after calling applications from professional and reputed caterers through press ad\ertisement. Under Clause.705 of the Code Zonal Selection Committee shall consist of two principal HoDs (one being the C.C.M.) and Principal / Professor or recognised catering institute. But, here, no selection was conducted as per Ext. P - 1 notice and selection committee who selected Respondents 4 to 7 consisted of C.C.M. / P.S. / M.A.S., C.M.M. / G. / P.E.R. and F.A. and C.A.O. / G. / M.A.S. (See Annexure I to writ appeal). According to the appellant, none of them were Heads of Departments, the C.C.M., who should have been necessarily included, was excluded and no Principal / Professor of a recognized catering institute was included in the Selection Committee. The appellant further stated that the second respondent hand picked these officers who would succumb to his dictates so that he could award the licences to whomsoever pleased him for extraneous, consideration and mala fide motives. In Ground B of the original petition it was contended as follows: