WP(C) 2892/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr R Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Das, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent railways appearing for the respondents. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken u p for disposal at the motion stage itself. The petitioner, which is a workers’ cooperative society having the place of work at Lumding station shed, by the present petition, has challenged the no tice inviting tender(NIT) dated 9th May, 2011 issued by the Senior Divisional Me chanical Engineer(Diesel), NF Railways, Lumding, inviting bids from the bona fid e contractors for cleaning of MG Diesel loco shed for a period of 2 years. The ground on which the said NIT has been put to challenge is that in vi ew of Railway Board circular dated 8th September, 1978, which is still in force, the work of cleaning of MG Diesel loco shed has to be awarded to the workers’ c ooperative society of the station having the area of operation, and not to the o ther contractors by allowing them to participate in the tender process. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Railway Board circular dated 8th September, 1978, has submitted that since the circular stipulates that contracts for goods, parcels, coal-handling, removal of coal ash, ash-pit/clean ing, cinder picking, etc should be awarded to available and willing genuine coop erative labour societies of actual workers and the petitioner society being a re gistered cooperative society of the actual labourers and such type of contracts had been awarded by the railways earlier, the authority would not have issued th e NIT for the aforesaid works allowing all the contractors including the labour cooperative societies to participate in such tender process. According to learne d counsel, issuance of the said NIT is in contravention of the circular dated 8t h September, 1978. Learned Standing Counsel for the Railways, placing reliance on affidavit -in-opposition as well as the additional affidavit filed, has submitted that sin ce the work for which the NIT was issued is for cleaning of MG diesel loco shed and the office rooms of the shed and not for contracts for handling of goods, pa rcels and coal, and removal of coal ash, ash-pit/cleaning, cinder picking, etc, the same does not come within the purview of the Railway Board circular dated 8t h September, 1978. According to learned Standing Counsel, the said circular deal s with the cleaning of coal ash, dock pits, etc and not MG diesel loco shed, whi ch includes the cleaning of the office rooms at the said shed. According to the learned Standing Counsel, no illegality, therefore, has been committed by the ra ilway authority in issuing the impugned NIT. The railway administration floated the impugned NIT dated 9th May, 2011 inviting bids from the bona fide contractors for cleaning of MG diesel loco shed for a period of two years. The nature of work required to be done under the sai d contract includes the cleaning of MG diesel loco shed, cleaning of all rooms, toilets of the administrative building, dock pits, platform, all drains at the d iesel shed campus, machine shop, ETP area, cycle/ scooter parking shed, cutting of jungles, etc. The railway board circular dated 8th September, 1978, on basis of which the petitioner claimed that no NIT can be issued as has been done by the railway authority in the instant case, is related to awarding of contract for goods, pa rcels, coal-handling, removal of coal ash, ash-pit/ cleaning and cinder picking, etc. It provides that such work is to be awarded to the reliable and wiling gen uine cooperative labour society of actual workers, without calling for tenders, irrespective of the value of contracts. The nature of contract for which the NIT dated 9th May, 2011 was issued is different from the nature of work covered by railway board circular dated 8th September, 1978. The petitioner does not disput e that there is no question of removal of coal ash-pit/cleaning and cinder picki ng, etc at Lumding station. That being the position, I do not find any merit to entertain the writ p etition and to interfere with the impugned NIT dated 9th May, 2011 and hence the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. No costs.