IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2104 of 2009 UMESH KUMAR PASWAN Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 2 13/2/2009 Heard Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In this writ application grievance of the petitioner, an earlier settle of Dharbhanga Railway Station Taxi Stand, is that there has been some foul play in the process of settlement of such Taxi Stand. He would submit that when the petitioner went to submit his offer in the prescribed form which was purchased by him in his name by depositing an advance of Rs.10,000/- as per terms and condition, he was not allowed to deposit the said form by some miscreants belonging to rival group of Ram Babu Choudhary who is said to be only person to have deposited his offer. Grievance of the petitioner is that the authority of the Railways is going to decide this settlement of Taxi Stand within ten days only on the basis a single tender/offer therefore, a direction may be given to stop such tainted process of 2 selection. It is difficult for this Court to go into this sort of dispute in question or to accept the story of the petitioner to be wholly sancrosant as the petitioner has not even claim to have informed the police or the Court of law with regard to snatching of his tender paper. His complaint to the Divisional Railway Manager (D.R.M.) may not be enough and appropriate because the D.R.M cannot take any punitive or preventive action as with regard to a person being criminally or forcefully deprived of his right under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such duty is cost upon authorities responsible for maintain law and order including police. The apprehension of the petitioner that the railway authorities would not be able to get any healthy competition and the best offer on account of single tender of Ram Babu Choudhary, who is said to be only person to have submitted his offer, though 15 tender papers are said to have been sold, is the matter of serious 3 concern for the Railway Authorities themselves. If 15 tender papers were sold and only one of them has been submitted, it is for the authorities of the Railways to take into account this aspect of the matter and if necessary, direct for a re- tender. This Court, however, is not making any observation on the merit of claim of the petitioner, but then it would given liberty to the petitioner to approach the D.R.M Samastipur by filing a representation. The D.R.M. is directed to consider all aspects of the matter to ensure that the best suited person paying the highest revenue to the Railways is selected and settled the Taxi Stand in an open and fair manner, strictly as per the Rules and Guidelines of the Railways and Central Vigilance Commission (C.V.C.). With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar