JUDGMENT :

1. The present challenge is with regard to an office order dated 25.10.2021 by which a tender floated by the Railways was discharged without assigning any reasons. The petitioner claims suffering of legal prejudice by such action and has, therefore, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Before delving into the issue which has arisen for adjudication, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are put on record in brief.

3. The petitioner is a partnership firm and carries out the business of general contractors. On 09.11.2020, a Tender Notice was floated by the Divisional Railway Manager, Rangia Division, inviting Expression of Interest (EoI) for developing the existing Goods Sheds at Baihata (BIZ), Rangia (RNY) and Ghograpar (GOE) Railway Stations of the Rangia Railway Division through private investment. Subsequently, on 19.05.2021, the office of the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Rangia Railway Division, NRF issued tender notification pursuant to which, on 24.06.2021, the petitioner had submitted its bid along with earnest money which was a two bid system, viz, technical and financial.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that its technical bid was found to be responsive and accordingly, its financial bid was opened which was found to be the lowest. Thereafter, on 11.10.2021, the petitioner was invited for some negotiations. However, vide the impugned communication dated 25.10.2021, the Tender in question, was discharged without assigning any reasons. Accordingly, vide communication dated 28.10.2021, the petitioner had asked for the reasons for such action. The said letter was not replied to, whereafter the instant writ petition has been filed. The contesting respondent-Railways have filed an affidavit-in-opposition dated 19.02.2022 disputing the claim of the petitioner.

5. I have heard Shri VS Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the Railways are represented by its Standing Counsel, Shri S. Chakraborty.

6. Shri Kusuwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned action is out and out most unreasonable and arbitrary, as the Railways, without any reason or grounds, has discharged the work. The learned counsel submits that some semblance of reasons are discernible from the minutes of the Tender Committee held on 20.10.2021. The relevant discussions are found against Sl. No. 19 of the said minutes. The authorities took notice of the fact that the petitioner had quoted 20% of share for self and 80% share for the Railways. The calculation has also been done by stating that the aforesaid 20% would come to Rs. 5.87 cores which the petitioner would be getting as gross profit for 10 years. It has further been stated that if the Railway manages the Goods Sheds than approximate cost of maintenance would be around Rs. 25 lakhs for 10 years. The Railway authorities have also discussed the extent of viability of the rate and ultimately, recommended for discharge of the tender in question. In the recommendation part, it has been stated that the revenue sharing percentage is against the interest of Railways and that Railway will be at big loss under the present situation. The learned counsel has contended that such decision has been taken after opening of the financial bid of the petitioner and thereby exposing the same in the open market which has caused immense prejudice. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the aforesaid discharge, another tender was floated which, however was rescinded.

7. Shri Khuswaha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the minutes of the meeting dated 20.10.2021 are taken into consideration, the said grounds cannot be said to be reasonable and free from arbitrariness. He has also contended that the decision is merely based on speculation.

8 In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

i) (1990) 3 SCC 280, Star Enterpr