IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 16910 of 2005 Between: A. Sanyasi Rao, S/o. (late) R.L. Narasimham Sharma, D.No. 7-7-22, Kondapallivari Street, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 2 The Divisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada Division, Krishna District. 3 Asst. Divisional Engineer, S.C. Rly. Tuni, East Godavari District. 4 Senior Section Engineer (Works), South Central Railway, Tuni, East Godavari District. 5 Senior Divisional Engineer (Works) (North), South Central Railway, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ or order or orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent canceling the tender in his proceedings No. B/W.121/1/Auction Trees/Works/ Dy. CAO/T/SC, dt. 14-7-2005 and 13-7-2005 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violative of principles of Natural Justice, contrary to the Terms of Auction dt. 7-6-2005 and violative of Art. 14, 21 of the Constitution of India besides malafide and consequently directing the respondents to issue work order as per the terms and conditions of the auction notification dt. 7-6-2005 with all consequential reliefs in the interest of justice and pass any such other order or orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.BHASKAR The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.16910 OF 2005 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner questions the proceedings of the Senior Divisional Engineer, (Works) (North), South Central Railway, Vijayawada, Krishna District, dated 13-7-2005 in canceling the auction conducted for the cutting and removing the trees on the platform of the Stations between Tuni and Bayyavaram railway stations by refunding the amount of Rs.67,557/- paid by the petitioner vide proceedings dated 14-7-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The undisputed facts are that the auction notice No.35 dated 7-6- 2005 was issued by the Section Engineer Works), South Central Railway, Tuni to cut the trees at the location of Tuni, Gullipadu, Narsimpatnam Road, Yalamanchili, Regupalem, Yelamanchili Narasingapalli, Bayyavaram, Kasimkota, Anakapally, Thady Railway Stations and railway quarters, fixing the date of auction on 22-6-2005. As per condition No.6 of the auction notice, soon after the bid of auction, the bidder has to pay the bid amount including the stamp duty immediately duly signing/executing the agreement and then only to take the auctioned items. As per condition No.7, if the bid amount is below the reserve price, the auctioned items cannot be sold or given to the bidder. As per condition No.8, the railway will not have any responsibility even the bid is higher. As per condition No.9, once the auction is conducted and handed over the trees to the bidder, the railway has no responsibility in protecting the items and no responsibility for any loss incurred by any means and the railway will not pay any compensation. As per condition No.10, while handing over the items to the successful bidder, the bidder has to give his written consent to railways, stating that no damage will be caused to railways in transportation and in case of any type of damage caused to the railways, the railways are constrained to recover the compensation. As against the reserve price of the said auction amount, the petitioner has bid for a sum of Rs.67,557/-, which includes 12.5% VAT as against the reserve price of Rs.55,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner deposited the entire auction amount immediately on the date of auction i.e., on 22-6-2005. It is stated that instead of executing the agreement by the 5th respondent in favour of the petitioner to execute the work, the matter was delayed without any justification and on 13-7-2005, the impugned letter No/B/W.121/I/Auctions/Works was issued, canceling the auction held on 22-6-2005 due to some administrative reasons. Followed by the said cancellation, the auction amount of Rs.67,557/- deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be refunded by proceedings dated 14-7-2005. The petitioner questions the said proceedings. A counter has been filed by the 5th respondent, stating that two days after the auction i.e., on 24-6-2005 one B.V.Appa Rao filed a complaint stating that the value of the trees are more than Rs.2,00,000/- and the petitioner managed the other participants to limit their offer at the lowest possible price and therefore he is ready and willing to pay 100% more than the highest bid. Based on the said representation alone, the action has been cancelled. The 5th respondent filed an office note dated 8-7-2005 with regard to the said representation for canceling the auction. It is stated that in respect of auction for cutting the trees between HVM–YLM one Mr.K.Kondal Rao became highest bidder for a sum of Rs.97,875/- as against the reserve price of Rs.80,000/-, but whereas in the impugned auction notification, the petitioner became the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.67,557/- as against the reserve price of Rs.55,000/- and while following the auction proceedings, all necessary procedure has been followed for conducting the auction and it is customary to paste the auction notice on the notice boards of all the railway stations falling within the jurisdiction of the concerned ESE, and as an extra measure, the said auction notices have been made known to local saw mill owners and their acknowledgements also have been obtained; and the reserve price has been arrived after obtaining the quotations from the local saw mill owners. Even with regard to the said representation/complaint of B.V.Appa Rao, I am of the opinion that no enquiry has been conducted with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of his offer to give double the auction price. No security whatsoever has been taken from him for cancellation of the auction. When the auction procedure is not defective and prescribed formalities have been followed, there cannot be any justification on the part of the 5th respondent in unilaterally canceling the auction conducted on 22-6- 2005 though the petitioner has complied all the formalities by depositing the entire amount on the date of auction itself. Therefore, the action of the 5th respondent is illegal and without any justification. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) payable by the 5th respondent from his personal pocket to the petitioner. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Date: 21-07-2008. Shr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 2 The Divisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada Division, Krishna District. 3 Asst. Divisional Engineer, S.C. Rly. Tuni, East Godavari District. 4 Senior Section Engineer (Works), South Central Railway, Tuni, East Godavari District. 5 Senior Divisional Engineer (Works) (North), South Central Railway, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 6.2CCs to 7.2CD copies