HIOHGOVm"01!jy0ieATy!tEGHHATnS<^mH;BII.J njR siNei.ereNca't; HON'K.ESHRI^.I^NXYAK.CA VWUTPETITlON N0,6014 OFM08 PETmONER reSPONDENTS Ver»us Thakur AX. Partapl, Sfe Latie ShiimairtE Thatair, fiigedt about 37 yaacs^ Presiclrtit,.JanSuvidha SamajikW|cashSeWiSW8tl<wt>W©t''i ^Hucted,Bhnal(C.G^\ 1. SouthEwtem©6nUatRafflway, Throigh tte Seniw CXvfejoiliat Gommereistf Mant^er,, Bitospw ^G^ 2. Tt» Senior Dhfeienat Qemmeiyal Manager Soulh l Easter^ (^rtttW Railway, D.R.M. Offkse W.R.S, Ccrfoay. f^upurj(G^ 3. The Staflwi Mastor, SoiNi Eastem Cenfral RaUvray, Duig (C.G.) ^•x:.sr aa !• iiias 'iiiaa :IB8 i^i^ KS^i fl- 4. JhwmJystlSansNian, Bt.ineH^ytto. 131, Ibrahamgar^, Near Bhopal Talf^, BHopalF(Ml^ ! Present: ShnKisHoFBhadun,ili Shrl Amtt Chaudhari.jl^utNclscounsel fortte respohdents] :.ORW.CTtB6R-: . :: • :.:. (Pas8eclion18WDBC:emt>e^2eO^ . The Sta^ Mas^, SouW Bistoin <^ntral l^ third re^ondent hereln, calleeli ^r tencters fer cleantrg ptnpes^ of stti® waiUng hdls ol!tt»rallwaystatioi'ti^h8{peW?nw,feu(^ certam <)there submit^ thelFleMterefc^^ p^ consideray th6 H^ spwito|a!1n |the^|||nd^ capabBffies of tte tenderers uWnKit^iy ;:i!';i]iSii •-a.- the fourth rwpomlw* hereln. K isadmBtedcasethatttwfateoffiaredtoy thefourth resppndentwasthe msBamum. (2) Thls writ p^Uon is, howwer, flted uneter Arttela 22ft <rfti& Con^ution of Indte sselang Interventjon of ttB Gourt and to anmil "the contract awarded in favour of ths fourih respondentsotely on ttw greuntf that th8 fourth respondent having offered srtttia rate of Rupees fiw tocs pwyew, subsaquently, l^ htstetterdated 26.09.2006a cqiy o' whteti 1» appended to ttie wrlt peUUon as Annexuw-P/11, informed tt»8 Wiird respondent thal the ratB ofliered by hlm fe not pracBcabte a»»lwlth ttot rata he couW not perfonn the conhacl and therefofe, e conhaet awarded by U»third respondent in fawur of tha fourth nsponderit, is arbteuy and nrt In the publte Interert. l.tomed oxmset fer the petBioner woulcthlghngWthatin^ewofwhaliscpnW respoiKtontdated26^.aX)5,:it Is appa(w»tthathe wUt nrt be aMe to petformtheobl^ationcasto»tNmunderthecortiact^fee8velyandln terms crf the Gontrart arwl thsrefore, tlw |Miblic Inteiwt^^^^^ )>• in jeopardy. In that viewofths matter, ttie GourtshouM step-in andM fte conbact and dhwst tto ttlrtf respenctont and othw wspondent authortUes to tloat ftesh tenders for awarding the same> eontiact.. Leamed Stantnng Coyiisel for fte Raihwa^s^ par,conb'a, on^he baals of insbucBons resUng wtt Mm, w<nAl, at ttie tttreshotel, pointoutttwtthe ao- called teltor ofttie fourtti respondentdateft 26^9.2005 was iwt recjrived by the raih^admlnistratlonarKlfterefore, thealtegaaansin^ raihi^ admlnistraUon fe unfeuncteA anct IbaBetess. ^He weutd contend that nwie <rf ths •- riatlway.eMttwriBesl'bi ate6 any -•5- pressure of coercton on the fourth respondentto accapt thaflri^nal offiBr madel^hlmandsntBrlntoaconlraGtwiBiftemt^alnsthissiriltandwish. Having heard iMmed counwl fcr (he partes. ttie only que^onthatansesforniytlecisk)nlswheU»rttM>peUUonerhasmad« out any pennlssibte ground to annul tfie conhact. tt Is toue thsrt hi the '* ' . . •. matter<rfawaNingthec<»ihaGt^publreauttK»iBestt value^p®stula^ flowti^ (rom Arttete 14 of the Constltuton IU» n<m^nNttt iite*s, reasonabtenessandlalmessshoutd be pracUssd. 1 do nrtflndfanytftiw in the award of the eonlraet in favour <rf ths fBurth rwpondent 6n ttie basisOfwhteh, 1 oould posstbtycouhl becondemn itt^sCTrfyingAiUete 14 postulates. 1 ssythfe, beeause.thetenderewere^oated.^portynitywas actNided to all eBgiye pereons; ttiey wwe(>n^>ertyscrufinlzed andiwen the contract waa awarded by the tftird respondant in favour tfthe feurth respondeitf 1t»award of contract in (avour of fourth respondart is <h <he best publte; Irterest InasmiK* as undw the owitraet, fte raUway admlnistraUon getsmaxtmumrrturntorthelargwsepartBdbyttlnfclwur cS e fiourth resporKtont. There is no need for me to dllate on ftfe aspsGl, because, it Is nrt the cort»nttonofUw teamad counsel ferttr paWnw that any flaw precedyrat OT substandve has crept Wo fte prtjcsss CulmlnaUngM<heaward<rf®ontraGtlnlavoure^^fourtht!W^ the ttiird respflndent. The cass btnB up tyltwflrtUm'wen aisote document 0^nn®aire-PM1)dateti ^;09s20(S ts bassdwi U»!n <rf the petiBener that conhact woutd N1. Tlwre is satisfadory nwrterid plaeed b^sre flw ©purtthati ttie feurth ti^a^ndtent would nrt be to a poslUen tapetfenn ^^^e^n cast or»him tf^ contract. Even the pleading uof ft pepi^ri is beceft ^ no •i'll't ^li? •Ull:i!t; -•4- parBcidars inthat regard. There Is netttier pleadlng nor prwrfto suslinn e plea raised in thls wril peUflon. The writ psfiton Is sccordt'r^ly dtsmlMecl,ncwev8r,iiirithnocosts. Sd/- ChiefJustice prtje''' •il"K fr :ws