The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision-making process of the authority in awarding contracts must adhere to prescribed procedures and should not be arbitrary or discriminatory.

Umeshwar Pandey, J.—The petitioners, who happen to be partners of a firm known as M/s. Brijwasi Keshav Milk Product, had submitted their tenders for the year 2003 after completing all the formalities for undertaking the contract for sale of ‘petha’, ‘pera’ and ‘dalmot’ at Mathura Junction Railway Station. The tender was floated by respondent No. 1 Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (for short I.R.C.T.C.) through publication in newspaper. The respondent No. 4, proprietor of M/s. Kwality Petha House, had also submitted his tender for the said contract. The licence fee was fixed at Rs. 22.50 lacs per annum and as pleaded in para 15 of the petition, Clause 5.1 of the tender form the licence was awardable to the party quoting the highest concession fee which would be over and above the licence fee. The petitioners offered a sum of Rs. 11,50,000 by way of concession fee in their tender whereas the respondent No. 4, as admitted in para 20 of the writ petition, offered Rs. 38,50,000 for the said purpose. The tenders were opened on 6.1.2004 and vide para 24 of the writ petition, it was awarded in favour of the respondent No. 4 though he did not possess the requisite experience of 10 years for manufacture and sale of ‘pera’ and vide para 26 of the writ petition, the petitioners contended that respondent

No. 4 failed to deposit the licence fee or concession fee within a period of 7 days. On account of lack of experience, as required in the advertisement of tender date 10.10.2003, and also on account of failure of respondent No. 4 to deposit the first instalment of licence fee and concession fee within a period of 7 days from the date of issue of letter of award of licence, he forfeited his right to obtain the contract. In spite of all these illegalities, as contended by the petitioners, the I.R.C.T.C. granted the contract in favour of the respondent No. 4. The petitioners have, thus, prayed for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent No. 4 from working as such licensee at Mathura Junction Railway Station and also for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to award this licence in their favour. They have further prayed that since they were continuing for the work of sale of ‘petha’ and ‘pera’ at Mathura Junction Railway Station by virtue of their licence for the year 2002, they should not be asked to discontinue and remove their total establishment from the Railway Station premises.

2. In response to the advance notice of the writ petition to the respondents, they have put in appearance and in opposition to the writ petition respondent No. 1 has filed the counter-affidavit and respondent No. 4 represented through his advocate Sri Ranjeet Saxena, has also filed his counter-affidavit. The respondent No. 1 contends in para 10 of the counter-affidavit that the tender of respondent No. 4 was accepted on account of having quoted the highest concession fee of Rs. 38,00,000 and offer of award of licence was made to him vide letter dated 6.1.2004. He was asked to convey the acceptance of offer and deposit the required amount within the stipulated period (12.1.2004) and start operation of sale from 17.1.2004. On 9.1.2004, the respondent No. 4 through his letter of the date represented that he was ready to complete the tender conditions and also made a request for one week’s extension for payment of concession fee/licence fee. The competent authority granted one week’s time to the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 9.1.2004 itself and the required amount was deposited by the respondent No. 4 vide two demand drafts dated 14.1.2004. Accordingly, he was awarded licence and necessary permission was given to him to start the business. As the licence of the petitioner was expiring on 16.1.2004, they were advised to take away their entire establishment and vacate the Railway Station premises. It is further contended in para 13 of the counter-affidavit that the re