This group of writ petitions which are brought under Art.226 of the Constitution relate to certain goods handling contracts given by the Western Railway Administration in respect of the Sabarmati BG-MG Group 63, Bharatpur BG-MG Group 37 and the Hapa Transhipment Point. The petitioners of these petitions claim to have experience and expertise in carrying out goods handling work for the Railway Administration. Their grievance is that as the contracts in respect of the aforesaid three transhipment points were given or extended without inviting open tenders, they were prevented from competing which they were entitled to as citizens of India and, therefore, the Railway Administration had acted in violation of their constitutional rights. They, therefore, pray that the contracts executed in respect of the aforesaid transhipment points should be quashed and the railway administration should be directed to grant fresh contracts in accordance with the normal open tender system.

2. The contract in respect of the Sabarmati transhipment point is given to M/s. Universal Goods Handling Company. The contract in respect of the Bharatpur Transhipment point is executed in favour of M/s. Chirag and Company. Though the contracts for these two points are separate composite petitions Nos. 171, 2161, 2162 and 3572 all of 1981 have been filed by different petitioners, albeit on identical grounds, challenging the grant of contracts to the aforesaid two parties. Similarly two petitions Nos. 1786 and 2394 of 1981 have been filed challenging the grant of Hapa Transhipment contract to M/s. Lotus Handling Company. The facts leading to these petitions, briefly stated, are as under:-

Re : Sabarmati BG-MG Group 63 Contract.

In the year 1975 the Western Railway invited tenders for goods handling contract in respect of the Sabarmati Transhipment point. Tenders were received from several contractors but the contract was ultimately given to Messrs Universal Goods Handling Company. The said contract was for a period of three years but after the said period expired, the Western Railway, instead of inviting fresh tenders, extended the period at the contract by another three years i.e. up to 15th Mar 1981, plus 121 per cent above the fixed schedule of rates. Before the extended period of the contract expired, the contractor wrote a letter dated 6th Sept. 1980 to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Western Railway, Bombay, stating that because of the constant rise in prices and the increase in expenditure for recruitment and maintenance of labour, it was not possible for him to complete the contract at the existing rates. The contractor, therefore, requested that either the rates should be increased reasonably or the letter should be treated as three months' notice under Cl.I (i) of paragraph 2 of the contract. On receipt of this letter the Railway Administration was required to decide whether to negotiate with the contractor for the increase in rates or to treat the contract as terminated on the expiry of the notice period. The Chief Commercial Superintendent recommended to the General Manager as under, vide his Note dated 17th Sept. 1980, Annexure II to his affidavit-in-reply in Special Civil Application No. 171 of 1981.-

"6. It is the normal policy to invite fresh tenders a few months before the expiry of the contract, and when under special circumstances, it is necessary to extend the contract, this is done on the existing rates and terms. The existing contract as already mentioned is due to expire on 15-3-1981. The case for negotiation does not have a precedent and is to be considered in the light of the factors explained in the then CCS's note at NPS 33 to 38.

7. In the circumstances and as the performance of the present Contractors - Messrs Universal Goods Handling Company, Ahmedabad, has been satisfactory and the railway cannot afford to risk entrusting the handling work at this major transhipment point to inexperienced contractors, who may not have the r