IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15547 of 2008 RAM BADAN SINGH S/O SHRI RAM NARESH PRASAD SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MAHENDRAPUR,PS-HATHIDAH, DISTT-PATNA --------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECY, MINISTRY TO RAILWAY,RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 3. THE DIRECTOR,VIGILANCE RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 4. THE G.M., EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 5. THE D.R.M. EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR 6. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, E.C.RAILWAY, DANAPUR 7. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (CORD),DANAPUR 8. THE ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL MANAGER, E.C. RAILWAY DANAPUR 9. THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER E.C. RAILWAY, DANAPUR ------------------------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. M.S.Madhup, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kr. Ambastha, Advocate Mr. Ram Pravesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents;Mr.Naresh Dixit, Advocate ---------- 5 5 /2/2010 Communication dated 25.4.2008 contained in annexure-7 issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Danapur is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. By virtue of the said communication the contract awarded in favour of petitioner for collection of parking fee from cycle, scooter, car, taxi stand at Hathidah Railway Station stands terminated. The reason for such a termination is that the character certificate furnished by him had concealed the fact that the petitioner was involved in a series of criminal cases. This concealment amounted to breach of item 18 of the tender condition leading to termination of the contract. The short facts are that a notice inviting tender was published in the various newspapers on 29.3.2006. The contract was to be awarded for collection of parking fee from the parking - 2 - stand located at Hathidah Railway Station which is the issue in the present writ application. The contract was to subsist for a period of three years from the date of final agreement. Petitioner was the successful bidder and the recommendations were made in his favour for award of the contract. Petitioner was required to furnish character certificate. He submitted character certificate dated 19.12.2006 issued by the Block Development Officer, Mokama. It is stated that the authenticity of the said character certificate was verified. A letter was issued to the petitioner dated 15.2.2007 laying out the terms and conditions including kind of deposit he had to make to facilitate execution of the contract. While all these exercise was going on a CWJC No. 6714 of 2007 came to be filed by a set of persons alleging many a things against the petitioner with the allegation that he is notorious criminal and serious kind of cases are pending against him and the petitioner ought not to be allowed to conclude the contract. The writ application came to be disposed of on 5.5.2008. Petitioner was issued a show cause seeking certain clarification and finally the impugned order terminating the contract was passed. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the decision to terminate the contract is arbitrary. There being no disqualification laid down in the notice inviting tender that a person charged with criminal offence was debarred for participation. The same cannot be made a ground for termination of contract. Even a criminal has right under the Constitution - 3 - guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) and till he is convicted he cannot be debarred or disqualified from award of a contract. In support thereof many a decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court has placed into service. The respondents have justified their action in the background that while the process of the tender was going on a communication was received from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna informing the authority about the number of cases which have been lodged against the petitioner and are pending in various courts. The offences are of murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, Arms Act, Explosive Substance Act etc. Though petitioner was stated to be on bail in most of those cases but the pendency of the case and the nature of the cases did raise a kind of alarm and concern that the settlement of the parking stand in favour of a person of such a character would not be in the interest of citizens and law and order situation. The response of the petitioner to the show cause was that these cases are motivated and filed by his enemies on false allegations. Petitioner is on bail and he has successful bid for the contract in question. It seems that the explanation offered by the petitioner did not satisfy the authority and annexure-7 came to be issued. The high sounding constitutional submission made by the petitioner whether a criminal has right to carry on trade and business is not the issue. The issue whether the petitioner has - 4 - furnished a character certificate obtained from the Block Development Officer, Mokama, which has been brought on record as annexure-3 states the correct facts or there is suppression. The character certificate states that there is no complaint against the petitioner and his character is very good (ACHARAN UTTAM). There was absolutely no indication about the petitioner’s involvement in about a dozen of cases. But in view of the materials and evidence which were brought to the notice of the respondent authority, obviously the petitioner had either furnished misleading character certificate or suppressed such facts deliberately. There is no dispute that a character certificate was mandatory for final award of the contract and execution of the agreement. It is in this background that for suppression of fact or for misleading character certificate that contract was not finalized and it came to be terminated. The Court does not want to go into the other issues as it is not required to be adjudicated upon in the present case in the given fact. The limited issue which requires consideration is whether the reason assigned by the respondent in annexure-7 is a valid reason. The reason assigned in annexure-7 is furnishing of a character certificate concealing the vital facts of involvement of the petitioner in a series of criminal cases. No where did the petitioner provides in the character certificate any indication or offer for non-furnishing of details about the cases. Obviously therefore there was a deliberate effort on his part to suppress this - 5 - material fact or misled the respondent on this issue. If the matter had not earlier travelled to the High Court and thereafter the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna would not have brought the fact to the notice of the respondent authority the situation would have been different. Now that the petitioner has been found to have furnished misleading character certificate without declaration of his involvement in a series of criminal cases the respondents are well within their power to issue annexure-7 which is not required to be interfered in the above stated background. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed as such. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)