IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.456 of 2011 IN CWJC No. 5655 of 2010 With I.A.No.2088 of 2011 With I.A.No.2107 of 2011 ==================================================== M/S Expression a Proprietary Firm through its Proprietor Arindam Guha, son of Shri Benoy Bhushan Guhathakurta, resident of 2nd Floor, Sheohar Sadan, Fraser Road, Patna-800001 -Petitioner - Appellant . Versus 1. East Central Railway through its General Manager, Hajipur-844109. 2. General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur-844109. 3. The Public Relation Officer, East Central Railway, Hajipur-844109 - Respondents-Respondents. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharthe Prasad, Advocate ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 15.03.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 2088 of 2011 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 15 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 2 delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 456 of 2011 This Appeal preferred under Section 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 3rd December 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 5655 of 2010. The appellant-writ petitioner is a proprietary firm engaged in advertising business. Earlier the appellant was empanelled for advertisement business by the respondent- East Central Railway (hereinafter referred to as “the Railway”). For the year 2009-10 the Railway modified the eligibility criteria for empanelment of the advertisers. One of the modified criteria was increase in the requirement of the minimum annual turn over from Rs. 2.5 crores to Rs. 10 crores. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid modification the appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 5655 of 2010 to challenge the said modification. The petition was contested by the Railway. According to the Railway the modifications were necessitated for empanelment of better, reliable, more experienced and 3 creative firms. Learned Single Judge has, after considering the pleadings and the submissions, rejected the challenge to the impugned modification. The learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the impugned steps taken by the Railway were not arbitrary in nature, rather it was a public policy adopted by the Railway. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal. Learned Counsel Mr. Y.V.Giri has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that pending this Appeal the appellant had sought certain information under the Right to Information Act. The information imparted, pursuant to the enquiry made by the appellant, discloses that the impugned modification was made arbitrarily, without seeking approval of the competent authority and without finance clearance. The impugned modification has been made deliberately with a view to excluding the appellant from the competition. He has relied upon the guidelines existing in the other parts of the country, namely, West Central Railway, Central Railway, Eastern Railway, etc. He has submitted that except the East Central Railway no other railways has expected minimum turn over from the prospective applicants. This is indicative 4 that there is no nexus or rationale between the eligibility criteria and the object to be achieved i.e. better and reliable advertising. He has submitted that the money is not the consideration as the empanelled agencies are required to give creative mind, rather than to invest money. He has strenuously urged that the impugned modification has been made malafide with a view to excluding the appellant alone. Mr. Giri has also submitted that the appellant has filed Interlocutory Application No.2107 of 2011 for production of the original record. He has submitted that the controversy involved requires perusal of the original records. The officer as high as the Managing Director did not approve the said modification and made an endorsement that the approval of the competent authority and the finance concurrence were not obtained. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with Mr. Giri. The information placed on record by the appellant obtained by him under the Right to Information Act suggests to the contrary. It does disclose that the modifications were made for improvement. Merely because the appellant is unable to answer the revised criteria, it cannot be held that the action was malafide, undertaken with a view to excluding the 5 appellant from competition. The High Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution would not sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Railway in fixing certain criteria for empanelment of the agencies. Besides, the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition has followed the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We see no substance in the present Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Bibhash (R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)