THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 1718 OF 2010 Date of Judgment: 10.11.2011 Between: R.D. Constructions and General Traders represented by its proprietor B.P. Jain …Petitioner and Government of India, Ministry of Railways and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WP NO. 1718 OF 2010 ORDER: First respondent-Railways called for a tender under tender notification dated 3.9.2009. The petitioner as well as the third respondent, apart from other contractors, participated in the said tender. The petitioner alleges that on opening of the bids, the third respondent was found lowest bidder and classified as L1, whereas the petitioner is classified as L2. Anticipating that the third respondent is likely to be awarded the works, the petitioner filed a representation dated 12.11.2009 before the Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway, Waltair bringing to his notice a circular issued by Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Engineering Department informing that the third respondent shall not be short listed for awarding contract, if he participated in any tender until further orders. Apprehending that in spite of the said representation, the first respondent would allot the works to third respondent, this writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not finalizing the tenders, though called for as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential direction not to allot the tender to third respondent. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed their counter- affidavits and an application for vacating the stay has also been filed. The first respondent states that no final decision has been taken with regard to tender in view of the status quo order passed by this Court. It is also stated that the third respondent having quoted lowest bid, he was considered and is eligible for awarding the contract subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria as per tender notice. It is also stated that the blacklisting of the third respondent by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust is not relevant for consideration as there is no adverse remarks against the third respondent so far as the railway contract is concerned. The third respondent has also taken similar contentions in his counter. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that no final decision has been taken by the respondents 1 and 2 in respect of tender and as such the petitioner being one of the tenderers whose offer is under consideration along with other competitive offers cannot be said to have any legal right which he can enforce and as such in the absence of any infringement of legal right, this writ petition is totally misconceived and premature. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 10.11.2011 KR