IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.199 of 2009 THE INDIAN RAILWAYS THRU.ITS Secretary, Railways Board, Railway Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.The Indian Railways through its General Managher, East Central Railways, hajipur, Vaishali. 3. The F.A. & C.A.O., East C entral Railways, Danapur, Patna. 4. The Divisional Rail Manager, East Central Railways, Danapur, Patna. 5. The Assistant Divisional Rail Manager, East Central Railways, Hajipur, Vaishali. 6. The Chief Commercial Manager, Eqast Central Railways, Hajipur, Vaishali. 7. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Raillways, Danapur, Patna. 8. The Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, East Central Railways, Danapur, Patna. 9. The Divisional Commercial manager, East Central Railways, Danapur, Patna. 10. The Divisional Fionance Manager, East Central Railways, Danapur, Patna. 11. The Divisional Engineer-1, East Central Railways, Danapur, Patna. 12.The Tender Committee,l East Central Railways, Danapur, Patna. ……Respondents- Appellants Versus M/S AJAY KUMAR, Partnership firm having its office at 201, Aranya Bihar Apartment, Near Yamuna Apartment, P.S. Krishnapuri, Dist. Patna, through its partner Smt. Vidya Singh, w/o Shri Gopal Shankar at present residing at 30 Niti Bagh, P.O. B.V. College, P.S. Danapur, Dist. Patna. ……Petitioner-Respondent. ----------- 3 30.3.2009 Respondents –appellants have preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.1.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14884 of 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ application and has quashed the decision of the tender committee dated 16.9.2008 to the effect that the petitioner was ineligible for consideration because he has not successfully completed similar works and the works are still in progress as a consequence of extension being granted. The learned Single Judge further directed the tender committee now to proceed to deal with the matter in accordance with law treating the petitioner to be eligible. - 2 - The contract periods for different groups approaching its end, the appellant East Central Railway published a tender notice on 20.7.2008 for making fresh settlement for cleaning the bed rolls, linen washing etc. for a period of three years. The petitioner respondent then filed his tender with respect to the aforesaid tender notice in two sets as required, one for technical approval and another for financial approval against all the nine groups. The petitioner respondent admittedly is an existing railway contractor for washing bed linen and bed rolls at different stations since 2004. One of the eligibility conditions as enumerated in the tender notice was as follows : “(iii) The tenderer should have completed in last three financial years (i.e. current year and three previous financial years) at least one similar work for a minimum value of 35% of advertised tender value.” In the tender form under the head “security deposite” the following condition has been mentioned under para (ii)(C):- “Security deposits will be recovered only from the running bills of the contract and no other mode of collecting SD such as SD in the form of instruments like BG, FD etc. shall be accepted towards security deposit.” The appellants respondent have annexed the minutes of the Tender Committee in which it is clearly noted that the petitioner respondent had been favoured with different contracts of similar nature for various period starting from 2004 up to January 2008 as he continued to work.As apparently no fresh tenders were being finalized, the work was being extended from time to time by the Railways on ad hoc basis. The decision - 3 - of the Tender committee is as follow: .. .. …” The convener member has certified that this work (Group 1, 2, 4 & 5 above) has not been successfully completed and the work is still in progress and further extension processed up to 13.12.2008. Hence, M/s Ajay Kumar does not fulfill the eligibility criteria no.3 i e non-fulfillment of completion of similar nature of work of 35% of advertised tender value ( i e 52.47 lacs). From a reading of annexure D it is apparent that though the original contracts with the petitioner were for three years and all of them had to be completed in January 2008 but merely because no tender was finalized , the Railways having extended the period, on same terms the earlier contract can not be said to have been not completed. Thus the contention of the appellants that since the petitioner respondent could not successfully complete the work allotted to him and the works are still in progress as a consequence of extension being granted and thus he was not eligible for consideration is erroneous and cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, we do not find any flaw in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge requiring interference by this Court. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Rahman/ (J.B. Koshy, CJ) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) - 4 -