IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 106 of 2009(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ ROSE BED ROLLS, I.D.A.PLOT NO.53D, KOCHUVELI, TITANIUM P.O. TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ANTONY THARU. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI. M.V VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI. BRIJESH MOHAN SMT. RESMI G. NAIR SRI. T.R SADEESAN SRI. T.S. SHYAMPRASANTH RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM -14. * SHRI. C. KRISHNAKUMAR, “SREE CHAKRAM, UNNAMALAKADAI JUNCTION, MARTHANDAM, KANYAKUMARI DISRICT, TAMIL NADU. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS. (* THE ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER I.A. NO.2628 OF 2009) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 106 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner is regarding award of Tender pursuant to Exhibit P1 Tender Notice, in so far as Train No.2202/2201 are concerned. The petitioner is presently the contractor who is supplying bed rolls in the trains referred above. While so, Exhibit P1 tenders were invited for regularising the present temporary arrangement and in response the petitioner and the additional 4th respondent, submitted their tenders. The tender submitted by the additional 4th respondent was the lowest. Subsequently on the allegation that against the conditions in Exhibit P1 and the present facilities provided, the Railways proposed to provide stacking space within the compartments, the writ petition has been filed. According to him, if this facility was also announced in Exhibit P1, that would have reduced his costing and the rates quoted by him, would have been still lower. In my view, the complaint of the petitioner cannot survive, in view of the averments made by the Railway Administration, in W.P.(C) No. 106/ 2009 2 additional statements filed on 24/01/2009, the relevant portion of which reads as under; “In such circumstances, it is submitted that there is no proposal by the Administration to provide cupboards for stacking of bed rolls inside the coaches of Train No.2202/2201 Garib Rath Express, until expiry of the contract envisaged in the tender which is under challenge in this writ petition. ” In view of this, the allegations raised in the writ petition can be seen to be wrong. Therefore, the petitioner can have no further grievance and hence, the writ petition is closed recording the aforesaid averments in the additional statement. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm