BRIJ BHAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these writ petitions challenge being to the award of licences in favour of respondent No. 10; one pertaining to tea, coffee, sweets, namkeen and fruit stall and the other for vegetarian and non-vegetarian refreshment room at Manikpur Railway Station, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. It is worthwhile to note here that the challenge in W.P. No. 3186/99 is on a wide spectrum whereas in W.P. No. 3281/99 the assailment relates to short-listing of the competitors, as a result of which the petitioner therein, has been thrown away at the very threshold.

(2.) The litigation has a history. An advertisement was published on 10-11-96 inviting tenders for catering snacks and food respectively. In pursuance of the said advertisement number of applications were made by the desiring persons for grant of licences. The applications were scrutinised by the Screening Committee and after scrutiny the Screening Committee sent the matter to the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee appreciating the factual matrix and the date furnished to it selected the present respondent No. 10. Feeling aggrieved by such selection the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 3186/99, Brij Bhal Singh, had preferred W.P. No. 4394/97 before this Court. It was averred in the earlier writ petition that the Selection Committee had adopted different standard altogether contrary to the policy in force and the selection being dehors the policy required to be lanceted in exercise of jurisdiction of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court noted that the Selection Committee had been swayed away by the concept 'youth and dynamism' in the area of catering, though such consideration was not relevant as per the guidelines envisaged in the policy. Being of this view a learned single Judge of this Court directed the respondents to constitute a fresh Selection Committee and reconsider the manner strictly in accordance with the stipulation in the policy for awarding the two catering contracts. The decision rendered by the learned single Judge was assailed in a Letters Patent Appeal forming the subject-matter of L.P.A. No. 24/99. The Division Bench while affirming the decision of the learned single Judge had modified the directions to the extent that fresh applications should be invited so that, the Committee may have better candidate and choice may become wider. The present respondent No. 10 preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court which stood dismissed by order dated 11-5-99.

(3.) After the controversy in that regard was put to rest, the Railways published a fresh advertisement dated 14-4-1999 inviting applications for grant of the two licences. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner and many others applied with requisite documents. As per the postulate in the policy governing the field, the Screening Committee scrutinised the applications and rejected the application of the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 3281/99. It is to be noted here that applications of some other applicants were also rejected at the initial scrutiny, but none of them has approached this Court. After the Screening Committee short-listed the said candidates the matter was putforth before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee considered the case of the candidates who had been short-listed and found the respondent No. 10 more suitable for the purpose of awarding of the licences. The recommendations of the Selection Committee was approved by the Assistant Divisional Railway Manager and after such approval the licences were granted in favour of the respondent No. 10. The said licences have been brought on record as Annexure P-13 and Annexure P-14. The said grant of licences is cause of grievance of the petitioners.