SARFARAZ ALAM Vs. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 12.10.1998 - The present writ petition is at the instance of one Sarfaraz Alam seeking reliefs in the following manner:

(2.) BOTH the S.E. Railways as well as opposite party No. 3 are contesting this proceeding. It is stated in the writ petition that the dispute arose with regard to tender for cycle -stand at the Railway Station, Rourkela. The petitioner alleges that the offer given by him was much higher he having quoted Rs. 4,80,000.00 per year whereas opposite party No. 3 who is alleged to be successful had quoted only Rs. 2,73,000.00 per year. Although the petitioner's bid was higher, that was not accepted and the petitioner was allowed to participate in the auction for certain technical aspects like depositing the required money with wrong official. A preliminary objection is taken by opposite party No. 3 as to maintainability of this writ petition by referring to a decision reported in AIR 1998 Allahabad 132 (Brij Bhal Gautam v. Union of India) where a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court found that the station where the contract was to be performed fell within jurisdiction of that High Court and the challenge to the award of contract was made on the ground of alleged illegality. There was neither cause of action, nor part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of the High Court in question. It was held that illegality, if any, in award of contract, cannot be said to have been indulged in at place where contract was to be performed. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court tried to distinguish an earlier decision of the Apex Court Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. A.P. Agencies). The Apex Court in the said decision held 'Jurisdiction of Court - More than one Court having jurisdiction - Contract to vest jurisdiction in one of them - Not against public policy'.

(3.) WITH the above observation and direction we dispose of the writ application. Issue writ accordingly. We make it clear that in case opposite party No. 3 succeeds in the fresh auction, the amount already deposited by him should be taken into account. He may make an application for consideration, in case his bid is not accepted and the amount has to be refunded, for payment on reasonable interest thereon as the situation may demand.