UNION OF INDIA Vs. M SUJATHAAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) There is a discussion at length of several controversies of facts and a direction has been issued by the learned single Judge, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to award the contract to take up cycle/scooter/car stand at Kachiguda Railway Station in the city of Hyderabad, to the petitioner. Facts, relevant for the determination of the issues, are as follows: The Divisional Railway Manager, Commercial Branch, Hyderabad Division, Secunderabad, issued a tender notification on 31-1-1995 calling for the tenders for issuance of licence to run cycle/scooter stand at Kachiguda Railway Station for a period of two years, from the interested persons. The successful bidder has to deposit 25% of the annual licence fee as security deposit and to pay the annual licence fee in lumpsum at the time of entering into the agreement for carrying out the business. Concerned parties submitted their tenders on 2-3 -1995, which were later opened and it is stated, the petitioner-1 st respondent was found to be the highest bidder. On 6-6-1995 the Divisional Railway Manager informed the petitioner-1st respondent that her bid was accepted and she was directed to comply with the conditions referred to above. The same was received by the petitioner-1st respondent on 13-6-1995. On the same date i.e., 13-6-95, she submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent i.e., Division Railway Manager, Commercial Branch, Secunderabad, with copies to all the concerned, requesting them to permit her to pay the annual licence fee in favourable instalments. The Divisional Manager concerned, however, rejected the same by his proceedings dated 15-6-1995. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition Mo. 16897 of 1995 on the file of this Court. The same was disposed of by this Court, at the admission stage, with a direction to the Railway authorities to consider the application of the petitioner as per law. After receipt of the order of the Court, once again the concerned authorities of the Railway, by communication dated 28-8-95, rejected the petitioner's representation. Against the said rejection the petitioner made, it is alleged, repeated representations to the General Manager, South Central Railway, with copies to all the authorities concerned. The Chief Commercial Manager, S.C. Railway, however, by his proceedings dated 26-10-95, rejected the last of the representations of the petitioner and directed her to pay the licence fee within a period of ten days. It is alleged that the petitioner received the said communication on 3-11 -1995 and approached the Divisional Commercial Manager for issuance of the challan to pay the amount on 6-11-1995, i.e., within ten days from 26-10-1995.It is further alleged that the petitioner also obtained a Demand Draft on Syndicate Bank in favour of the Chief Commercial Manager, S.C. Railway and sent the same by registered post. But the same was returned on 16-11-1995. Narration of other facts, however, is not necessary except to point out that when notice of the Court was served upon the respondents, they appear to state that since the petitioner did not agree and continued representing against the demand of one year licence fee, the next highest bidder one Ekambaram was handed over the site after the previous contractor's period was over and even the time extended for such compliance by the petitioner was not adhered by her. Learned single Judge has, however, disposed of the writ petition with the direction as follows:

(3.) If the above, however, is viewed on the principles which this Court has to apply for issuance of any mandamus in the matter of a contract, when one of the contracting parties is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, one has to hold unhesitatingly that the direction which has been issued by the learned single Judge has the effect of modifying the conditions of the tender and the award of contract, and thus, is almost an exercise of power of an authority, who for the purposes of contract on behalf of the State has to decide on what terms and conditions a contract would be awarded.