THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL Nos.542, 545 and 548 of 2010 Dated:28.07.2010 Between: M/s.Metro Agency. …Appellant and Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Commercial Branch, Sanchalan Bhavan, Second Floor, Secunderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL Nos.542, 545 and 548 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These three writ appeals by M/s.Metro Agency, a proprietary concern, are filed against three separate interlocutory orders passed by the learned single Judge, whereby and whereunder, the interim orders passed in the writ petitions were vacated. We may briefly notice the fact of the matter in W.A.No.545 of 2010 arising out of interlocutory order in W.P.No.26361 of 2008. The respondent has leased out SLR space and Assistant Guards Cabin space for transportation of parcels to private operators. The space is leased out in different trains of Indian Railways. On 22.05.2008 the respondent invited open tenders for leasing of four tonnes space by Train No.2704 Falaknuma Express from Secunderabad to Howrah. The petitioner was successful. It was awarded contract for six days in a week at Rs.23,615/- per day from Secunderabad to Howrah. The petitioner alleges that it approached the respondent on a number of occasions for completing the formalities like execution of agreement, but a copy of the agreement was not furnished. On 31.10.2008 the respondent terminated the contract. Fresh tenders were invited. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted the writ petition. Initially, this Court while ordering notice stayed the tender process. Respondent filed application for vacating the stay along with counter affidavit contending that the contract was terminated as the petitioner failed to commence loading of four tonnes space in spite of repeated reminders, and that contract was terminated after issuing the show cause notice. Learned Judge, as noticed supra, allowed the W.V.M.P and dismissed the W.P.M.P. The order reads as under. This is an application to vacate interim order, dated 02.12.2008 in Writ Petition No.26361 of 2008. The dispute pertains to termination of contract for leasing of space in Train No.2704-Falaknuma Express and Secunderabad to Howrah Express and forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.25,000/- and calling for fresh tenders. The petitioner also questioned tender notice No.C/C/37/SLR- AGC/2008/III, dated 29.10.2008. This Court, by order dated 02.12.2008 directed the respondent not to proceed further in pursuance of tender notification dated 29.10.2008. According to the petitioner, the contract awarded to it will last till 2011. As the contract was already terminated, the validity of which is required to be adjudicated in the Writ Petition, I am of the opinion, that the respondent cannot be prevented from calling for fresh tenders as that would not benefit the petitioner in any manner except depriving the respondent of using the train space by leasing out the same. In this view of the matter, I do not find balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner for continuing the interim order. The WVMP is accordingly allowed and WPMP No.34518 of 2008 is dismissed. In the other two appeals the factual background is the same, but the train numbers and the route differs. Be it also noted that in the other two matters the contract was terminated on the ground that the petitioner did not commence loading the train. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was in breach in not supplying the contract form, and therefore, there was a delay. Secondly, he submits that if the award of contract is not stayed, the writ petition itself would be rendered infructuous. These contentions are refuted by the Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is now well settled that pre-contract arbitrariness attributed to public authority is amenable to judicial review on limited grounds. It is also axiomatic that post-contract arbitrariness or breach of contract by the public authority ordinarily is not a matter in which redress can be granted in the writ petition (see Radha Krishna Agarwal v State of Bihar[1]). Therefore, prima facie, we are convinced that as the dispute is in relation to the post-contract period, the petitioner’s remedy is not to seek stay of the further tendering process. Admittedly, when the contract is terminated, it is for the petitioner to pursue the other remedies. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge. We, however, direct the Registry to list the writ petitions for final hearing in the second week of August, and give liberty to the petitioner’s Counsel to mention for expeditious hearing. The Writ Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 28.07.2010 vs [1] AIR 1977 SC 1496