RAMEN DEKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the Annexure-4 series tender notices all dated 26.04.2013, by which sealed bids on single stage two packet systems were invited by the Chief Commercial Manager/PM & Catg, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati, for providing On-Board Catering Services in various trains as indicated in the tender notices. According to the petitioner, the conditions specified in the tender notices are contrary to the Catering Policy, 2010, circulated by the Government of India in the Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, vide its circular letter No. 35/2010 dated 21.07.2010. As claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has been running Food Plaza at New Jalpaiguri Railway Station under N.F. Railway and he has the experience of running On-Board Catering Services on trains under the Railways for more than last 15 years. Referring to the impugned tender notices, the petitioner has contended that the conditions stipulated therein being opposed to the aforesaid Catering Policy, 2010, are not sustainable in law. Be stated here that the petitioner has not responded to the impugned tender notices by submitting his tender. The basic grounds on which the tender notices have been enumerated in Paragraphs 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25 and 26 of the writ petition, which are reproduced below.

(2.) While referring to the Catering Policy, 2010 as circulated by the circular letter dated 21.07.2010, the petitioner has also referred to the Annexure-3 circular letter dated 02.01.2013, by which the Zonal Railways were advised to implement the tendering process with the enclosed revised SBD's. However, except enclosing the said letter dated 02.01.2013, the revised SBD as was circulated by the said letter has not been enclosed to the writ petition. Thus the writ petition is confined to the challenge made in respect of the Annexure-4 series tender notices all dated 26.04.2013 in reference to the Catering Policy 2010 without referring to the revised SBD's circulated by the said letter dated 02.01.2013. As per the own admission of the petitioner, the Catering Policy, 2010 was followed by SBD prepared in June, 2012, but the same was kept in abeyance till December, 2012. It was only thereafter the revised SBD was issued on 02.01.2013. The impugned tender notices are in tenure of the said SBD.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent railways, it has been denied that the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender notices are in violation of the Catering policy. Referring to the revised SBD as circulated by the aforesaid letter dated 02.01.2013, it has been stated that the tender process has been initiated as per the guidelines of the Railway Board. It has also been stated that contrary to the stand of the petitioner, the fixed reserved price based on the actual assessment of sales in all the trains against which tenders have been quoted is even lower than the earlier price. In this connection, the respondents have annexed to the counter affidavit the Annexure-E document to show that the existing license fee is higher than the reserved price quoted. For a ready reference, the said chart is re-produced below:-