HEM CHANDRA BORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the Misc. Case No. 228 of 1998 was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing a letter received from the General Manager respondent No. 2 urged that since there is some feasibility of compromise, the hearing should be deferred. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - N.F. Railway opposed the pirayer on the ground that there was no such move. The Law Officer of the Railway was; also present and he also denied any such move, some time was granted to the respondent counsel to ascertain if any such negotiations for compromise was going on. On confirming the fact, learned counsel for the Railway stated that there was no such move.

(2.) It is almost a year by now that an interim order was passed.on 2.5.97 directing the respondents to maintain status quo restraining the respondents from making any fresh advertisement for tenders. The Railway by the application registered as Misc. Case No. 228 of 1998 has applied for vacating the stay order.

(3.) The matter relates to a contract and the work to be carried out is that of a prestigious project undertaken by the Railway, it is Jogighopa-Guwahati Broad Gauge Railway line. The tender forming subject matter of the writ petition has been discharged by the respondents in view of the fact that the drawing for item No. 7 has undertaken major changes. The block has now been planned to be made in conformity with the station building already constructed at Mirza. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that it was not in the public interest to finalise the contract with the existing arrangements. Therefore, a fresh tender notice which was to be issued, as a result of the interim stayiorder dated 2.5.97 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, the whole Jogighopa-Guwahati Broad Gauge words has been held up. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally agreed to;argue the petition when it was indicated that the stay order will be vacated inasmuch as even its best apprehend loss if any to be suffered by the petitioner is peculiar in nature and cannot be treated an irreparable injury the public work of laying a Broad-Gauge Railway track shoulld not be allowed to be held up, learned counsel for the petitioner agreed for arguments on merits. Denouncing the respondents' actkcn in discharging the tender as wholly arbitrary and capricious, learned counsel invoking Wednesbury principle submitted that the action is wholly unreasonable. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand maintained that the writ petitioner, contractor by his own conduct has invited this situation. Before dealing with legal principles governing Government contract and the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, it would be pertinent to note few salient facts.