THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2363 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.RPF/EcoR/IVG/Misc/4829 dated 12.10.2004 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same insofar as the petitioner alone is concerned. According to the petitioner, he is a permanent resident of Raipur and is engaged in the business of scrap as an agent of various firms. The nature of his business is to submit the tender schedules on behalf of the intending Firms, participating in the negotiations, making payment to the sellers and taking delivery on behalf of the purchasers. It is the case of the petitioner that in the auction conducted by the respondent authorities in pursuance of the auction notice issued in the month of January, 2005, for purchase of 1,900 CST-9 plates link of Railways, he acted as an agent for a firm namely M/s. Santosh Steel Enterprises, Nagpur, which stood as a successful bidder. After receipt of the amount from the said Firm i.e., M/s. Santosh Steel Enterprises, Nagpur, the 6th respondent issued sale release order dated 23.02.2004, and the Divisional Manager, Waltair, issued delivery order dated 24.02.2004, for lifting the auctioned property. Thereafter, the said Firm authorized one N.Satish Kumar, for lifting of the auctioned property from the site where it was placed, and when that person along with others was shifting the auctioned property along with other property that was not auctioned, in two lorries, the Sub-Inspector of Police intercepted the lorries at the delivery spot and, on suspicion that the material in the lorries was being carried without any authority, seized the lorries along with the materials in it and registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act against the driver and other persons. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent-Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, passed the impugned order 12.10.2004, whereby it was stated that a policy decision was taken to debar the firms, their agents and other concerned persons including the petitioner, as mentioned therein, from participating in auctions, entering into auction halls and taking delivery of scrap, for their organized theft of Railway material. The petitioner states that neither any notice was issued to him before passing the impugned order nor the impugned order was communicated to him and also that he came to know about passing of the impugned order only when the application submitted by him on behalf of one M/s. Pavan Traders, to participate in the auction, was refused to be taken by the respondent authorities. It is his grievance that though his duties as an agent of M/s. Santosh Steel Enterprises, Nagpur, was completed as soon as the sale release order was issued by the 6th respondent and that he has not committed any offence much less the offence alleged in the said Crime No.2 of 2004, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned order dated 12.10.2004. Hence, this writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that since the petitioner was found involved in the alleged offence, a case in Crime No.2 of 2004 was registered against him and others, and this lead in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 12.10.2004. It is further stated that consequent to the impugned proceedings, the 6th respondent issued a letter dated 16.02.2005, informing M/s. Santosh Steel Enterprises, that the Railway Administration has decided to debar it and the persons named therein, including the petitioner, from participating in future auctions of the respondent railways. A copy of the said letter dated 16.02.2005 is filed along with the counter-affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Railways. As can be seen from the material on record, it is clear that on the allegation of theft of Railway material, in pursuance of the auction conducted by the Railways, the petitioner and other persons concerned with the firm M/s. Santosh Steel Enterprises, were debarred from participating in the auctions of Railways. Though the petitioner contend that he merely acted as an agent of the said Firm in the auction proceedings and that as soon as the release order was issued, his role in the transaction was completed and that he is no way connected with the alleged theft of material of Railways, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner was involved in the offence of theft of railway material, which was not auctioned, and a criminal case was also registered against him and others. Thus, whether the petitioner committed the alleged offence or not is the matter to be decided in the criminal case registered against him and this Court cannot go into that aspect under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, since the petitioner merely acted as an agent of M/s. Santosh Steel Enterprises, if the respondents want to penalize the petitioner for the alleged theft of non-auction railway material, they can prohibit him from participating in the auctions of Railways on behalf of M/s. Santosh Steel Enterprises, but he cannot be restrained from participating on behalf of other Firms. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to permit the petitioner as an agent of other Firms, except M/s. Santosh Steel Enterprises, to participate in the auctions that may be conducted for sale of Railways scrap by the respondents, in future, as per law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 20.01.2011 v v