Railway authorities are entitled to blacklist contractors who abandon contracts midway, in accordance with their commercial circulars, and are not required to provide adequate infrastructure for running cycle stands at their own cost.

Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the propriety and legality of a notice of show-cause dated 05.12.2008 and subsequent order dated 22.04.2009 passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah blacklisting the writ petitioner namely, VIP Cooperative Labour Contract and Construction Society Limited and Anr.

2. It is contended by the writ petitioner that they are a registered cooperative society and adept in performing job on contract basis like cycle stand/ car parking and cleaning loco trip shed for a long time. It is contended that though the writ petitioners have discharged their duties faithfully in the past and participated in different tender processes but the respondent authorities had always tried to show step-motherly attitude towards them without any reasonable cause for which even after acceptance of their bids they had to approach this Hon’ble Court in M. A. T. No. 167 of 2007 and W. P. No. 2943(W) of 2008 for settlement of their disputes.

3. It is further contended that the respondent no. 5 floated a tender notice being no. ELS/How/10/413 in which they participated and the date of opening was 29.07.2008 in respect of cleaning of electric loco shed and electric loco trip shed at Bamungachi, Howrah for period of three years. Though they were the lowest bidder they could not accept the offer due to their blacklisting by the respondents by order dated 28.02.2008. The said order was challenged before this Hon’ble Court in a writ petition being W. P. No. 21460(W) of 2008 which was set aside by this Hon’ble Court by order dated 11.09.2008 since the same was issued without giving any opportunity of being heard. Thereafter the petitioners were participated in tender but suddenly they received a show-cause notice dated 05.12.2008 for their blacklisting. They had given a reply on 29.12.2008. During pendency of such matter another tender notice was floated being ELS/How/10/413 whose opening date was fixed on 29.07.2008 for which they submitted tender documents with the earnest money by demand draft dated 28.07.2008 with all particulars. But instead of deciding the tender matter the respondent authorities extended the period of existing assignment of mechanised cleaning of electric loco shed and electric trip loco shed from time to time under their orders dated 30.09.2008, 27.10.2008 and 04.03.2009 without issuing any word order to the lowest bidder. On the contrary they issued a retender notice being no. ELS/How/10/413 fixing 28.04.2009 for opening the same. The present writ petitioners challenged such retender notice before this Hon’ble Court by filing a writ petition being W. P. No. 7691(W) of 2009 on 20.04.2009. Immediately thereafter, the respondent authorities issued their order being no. COM./Dev-CYL/PCY/Black List/07 by way of retaliation which is absolutely illegal and unethical because there was no fault or latches on the part of the writ petitioners. In the said order, which is now challenged, the respondents have identified the writ petitioner as habitual defaulter in paying the dues of the railways after acceptance of their lowest bids in several tenders floated in the past. They ran the business but did not pay the subsequent railway dues after making the initial deposit and failed to execute any agreement with the railway authorities for performing such contractual obligation for the stipulated period.

4. In course of hearing learner lawyer for the writ petitioners has submitted that in the above context they are now ascertaining their claims regarding acceptance of their bids in maintaining cycle stand of Srirampur Railway Station which has been retained by them but they have already surrendered their claim in respect of other bids for Chuchura, Howrah etc.

5. In their affidavit-in-opposition the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have claimed that the writ petitioners were awarded contract for running cycle stand at Chuchura,