The court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders, the need to impose costs for frivolous claims, and the authority of the railways to formulate guidelines for parcel handling contracts.

1. These two writ petitions are filed by one and the same person. In W.P.No.15241/2007, the petitioner seeks to challenge the tender notification dated 27.03.2007, as published in Daily Thanthi newspaper dated 08.04.2007 and after setting aside the same, for a direction to the respondents to abide by the Railway Board's policy and the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21688 of 2004 dated 20.07.2005, to maintain the existing contractors by six months extension till such time guidelines are framed for "Clearing and Forwarding Agency on Parcel Handling" by proper authority.

2. Writ petition in W.P.No.15242/2007 was filed challenging the guidelines issued by the railways in respect of parcel handling contract framed by respondents 1 to 4.

3. Both writ petitions were admitted on 25.04.2007. Pending the writ petitions, this Court granted the following interim order :-

"3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, suffice it to pass the following order:

(i) the Railway authorities are directed to take appropriate decision for finalizing the guidelines for grant of clearing and forwarding agency for the handling of parcels within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

(ii) on such finalization of guidelines, appropriate orders shall be passed in the matter of issuance of license for clearing and forwarding agency in Coimbatore Junction Railway Station, Palghat Division, Palghat within two weeks therefrom;

(iii) the extension of license granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.21688 of 2004 by proceedings dated 18.4.2005 shall be subject to the decision in Clauses (i) and (ii), referred to above; and

(iv) there shall be an order of status-quo till a final decision is taken as per clauses (i) to (iii), referred to above."

He further submitted that since the directions contained in Clause (ii) of the above said order has not been complied with by the Railway Board, Status quo as ordered in Clause (iv) of the said order has to be maintained.

2.) The said submission of the learned Senior Counsel prima facie appears to be acceptable. Hence, there shall be an order of interim stay and interim injunction till 12.06.2007. Post on 9.6.2007.

4. Aggrieved by the grant of interim order, one B.Balasubramaniam filed an impleading application in W.P.No.15241/2007. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he had stated that in the State of Kerala two divisions were entrusted with handling the work of clearing and forwarding parcel handling through tenderers. Thirussur, Alwaye, Ernakulam, Alappuzhai, Kollam and Thiruvananthauram stations come under Thiruvananthauram Division. Coimbatore, Mangalore, Shoranur and Kozhikode come under the Palakkad division. One Ravindran, who was a contractor entrusted with the work of parcel handling for a period of three years, approached the High Court of Kerala seeking for continuance of his tender. In that writ petition, the said Balasubramanian was also made as a party. The High Court of Kerala in W.P.(Civil) No.5408/2007, after hearing both the parties vacated the interim order obtained by the said Ravindran. It is the contention of Mr.Balasubramanian that the writ petitioner was fully aware of the order passed by the Kerala High Court. By obtaining interim orders, he was continuing for years together without permitting the Railways from giving tenders pertaining to parcel handling which was to be given once in three years. The Railways have also not shown any interest in vacating the interim order. The impleading petition is yet to be ordered.

5. The Railways after waking up from their deep slumber, filed two applications in M.P.Nos.1/2012 and 2/2012, seeking to vacate the interim order which was in force for the last five years. The application for vacating the interim stay was supported by a counter affidavit filed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway. In that the contentions raised by the petitioner in his two writ petit