M.A.PAUL Vs. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings dated 23.01.2012, issued by the Tender Committee, wherein and by which after approving the minutes of the Tender Committee, the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel) made a recommendation for the opening of the financial bid of the only eligible tenderer, namely, M/s. Rose Bedrolls, Ernakulam as it was accepted. The said M/s.Rose Bed Rolls has been made 3rd respondent to the writ petition. The petitioner seeks to challenge the non- approval made by the second respondent and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to the first respondent, namely, Divisional Railway Manager (Mechanical) to permit him to participate and decide the price bid of the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent as per the terms and condition of the tender notification dated 12.09.2011.

(2.) THE Writ Petition when came up for admission on 27.02.2012, notice was directed to be issued to the respondents and private notice was also permitted to the 3rd respondent. Though the third respondent was served, there is no appearance on their side and their name is printed. Only on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 a counter affidavit dated 04.07.2012, is filed justifying the recommendations made, which is impugned in the writ petition.

(3.) PURSUANT to the order issued by this Court, the petitioner issued a legal notice stating that the respondents were not decided the technical bid sofar therefore, the volume of business in other branches of Southern Railway along with relevant documents can be considered. The petitioner also sent another letter dated 23.11.2011, stating that the railway authorities should not evaluate in an arbitrary manner and they will respect the Court order.