IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1520 of 2009 PURVOTTER RAILWAY LOCO HANDLING SHARAMIK SAHYOG SAMITI LTD. MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY VIKASH KUMAR SON OF RANJIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILL- SINGAR FULKAHAN,P.S- KANTI, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR. …...Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE ZONAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL REAILWAY, HAJIPUR, BIHAR, 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR, CHAPRA 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR, CHAPRA 5. THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR, CHAPRA 6. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL FINANCIAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR, CHAPRA. ….Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Rajni Kant Mishra, Adv. For the Railways : Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah, adv. -------- 3. 19.01.2011 The present appeal arises out of the order dated 7.11.2009 passed in CWJC No. 1055 of 2007 wherein the appellant herein being the petitioner has questioned the tender notification published in the local Newspaper (Hindustan) dated 14.1.2007/15.1.2007 (Annexure 7 to the writ application) on the ground that the respondent authority failed to follow the procedure laid down in the Circular dated 25.6.1987, Annexure- A 2 to the counter affidavit filed in this appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner it has been stated in the Circular that if the Divisional Railway Manager (D R M) of the concerned Railway was of the opinion that a Cooperative society in a particular area is not functioning properly in the past or the rates being asked are unreasonable, he had the freedom to float open tenders for award of contracts obtaining prior approval of the concerned departments. Learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner submits that the prescribed procedure has not been followed by the concerned authority of the railways in the case of the appellant-Society and respondents have illegally issued re-tender notification in contravention of the relevant circular issued by the Railway Board . It appears that at the first instance this Court had granted stay but when the matter came up for final hearing, the learned single Judge had observed that initial tender notice contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application had envisaged the scope of work only for two years and as the same was issued in the year 2007 and 3 remained stayed under the order of this Court, the said tender notice had become redundant and lost its meaning. It had also been observed therein that under such changed scenario the railway authorities therefore will have to decide afresh as to what would be the future course of action on this issue. Learned counsel for the appellant in this regard has further contended that the appellant writ petitioner is aggrieved by the finding recorded by the learned single Judge in the impugned order as with regard to giving liberty to the railways to decide afresh with regard to its future course of action in relation to award of contract. On the other hand it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent railways had to follow the Circular issued by the concerned authorities as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed in this appeal which clearly indicates that the opinion of the DRM has to be obtained with reference to the working pattern of the Cooperative society as also the manner of functioning of the 4 cooperative societies. In our considered opinion, there is no material placed either before this Court or even before the learned single Judge by the respondents which could show that the instruction issued in the said Circular dated 25.6.1987 was followed in letter and spirit. The learned single Judge in fact in complete absence of such materials has observed that the authorities of the railways can issue a fresh tender notice and to that extent we appreciate the apprehension expressed by Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra learned counsel that such observation of this Court may be treated by the authorities of Railways as a licence for issuing fresh tender. We however must make it clear that there was no effective adjudication and life of the impugned tender notice came to an end by efflux of time. We are therefore of the opinion that the finding of the learned single Judge that the tender notice has become redundant need not be interfered with but a direction can still be issued to the authorities to take a decision taking note of contents of the Circular dated 25.6.1987 as contained in Annexure- A to the counter affidavit filed in 5 this appeal before taking any decision as with regard to floating of new tender notice. We would however observe that any decision for floating new tender notice which is now sought to be taken must be strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the circulars issued by the State Government. With the aforementioned observation, the order of the learned single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above and accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. Kanchan/rishi (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)