BIKRAMJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that in the tender for four tons parcel space in Train No. 12904 Ex. ASR to BCT published vide advertisement dated 26.7.2012, the petitioner was the H-1. Despite this, the tender has not been awarded to the petitioner but, on the other hand, the tender has been re-floated on 15.7.2013 through a fresh advertisement without disclosing any reasons to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to RTI application made on 24.6.2013 specifically soliciting the answer to the query of no decision being taken for six months on the bid of the petitioner and enquiring whether the bid had been withdrawn (Annexure P-6). In answer to the same, vide a letter, it has been stated that the tender process is complete and as per Item No. 15 of Instructions to Tenderers, the railway administration reserves the right to reject or accept any tender without assigning any reason.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid clause cannot give a licence to the respondents to cancel the tender without recording the reasons for the same and, in this behalf, relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another, 2001 8 SCC 491, which states as under:-

(3.) We must note with regret that the respondent-authorities have not cared to answer the queries of the petitioner with the result that the petitioner is in dark about the reasons for non-acceptance of his highest bid. The result is that there are two rounds of litigation-first one to find out as to what the reason is and the second one to assail the reasoning, if so advised.