Back
2001 Supreme(MP) 289
2002 (1) JLJ 187
Bhawani Singh, C.J. and A.K. Mishra, J.
Brijbhal Singh Gautam v. Union of India and others
L.P.A. No. 443 of 1999; against the order of Single Bench passed in
W.P. No. 3186 or 1999; Decided On : 27.4.2001.
R.P. Agarwal with Sanjay Agarwal for appellant; S.K. Mukheljee for respondent Nos. 1 to 9:
Rajendra Tiwari with R.K. Shrivastava for respondent No. 10
Headnote:(1) Tender -- for contract of catering etc. -- two notices prescribing condition of interview - finalising contract without interview is bad in law.
This intra-Court appeal has been preferred by appellant-petitioner for quashing grant of contract to Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, respondent No. 10 for the period 1999 to 2002. Contract granted for five years - 1997 to 2002 to respondent No.10 was quashed in the first round of litigation and this Court directed consideration to be made afresh after inviting applications for the remaining period as respondent No. 10 lacked catering experience and grant of impugned contracts were quashed in the earlier writ petition filed by present petitioner, in which he succeeded upto the Supreme Court. [Para I
Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has submitted that it was in accordance with the directions of this Court issued in the previous writ petition/LPA, and of the Supreme Court, the decision was taken not to conduct the interview as the directions was to make fresh selection strictly in accordance with the policy, thus, the interview was not conducted and advertisement issued was against the policy to that extent. [Para 41
Held: In our opinion, once in both the advertisements, it was mentioned that interview will be conducted, it was not open to the respondents No.1 to 9 to finalise the selection without calling the incumbents for interview. It is not denied that it has been consistent practice of Railways to conduct the interview before finalising the award of such contracts. In this case, there is no valid reason shown to exist for taking a decision of not calling various applicants found fit on screening for interview. There is no direction in the writ issued by this Court in W.P. No. 4394/1997 or LPA No. 24/1999 to debar interview. [Para 42
(2) Licence - allotment of catering/vending licence to candidate lacking in experience -- liable to be quashed.
The policy of the Railways as contained in memo. dated 6.1.1992 for allotment of catering/vending licences mentions for the purpose of scrutiny, reputation/business standing, turnover if any, catering experience, financial standing, size of the establishment and staff required for the unit, location of the unit are the relevant criteria for the purpose of screening the application in order to shortlist the candidates, whereas the selection has to be made of most suitable among the shortlisted candidates based on (i) reputation (ii) capability (iii) experience and (iv) track record of the short-listed parties.‘ [Para 47]
Held: In the instant case the respondent No. 10 was not fulfilling the condition of eligibility as his experience of Hotel USA, Satna was negated in the previous writ petition and experience of Hotel Basera was not claimed in the previous writ petition and the document which has been annexed is of doubtful origin and respondents No. 1 to 9 had taken into consideration the experience of Hotel ‘USA‘ and Hotel ‘Basera‘ which ha~ vitiated its decision, experience of Hotel ‘USA‘ could not be taken into consideration in view of the finding of this Court in the previous writ petition, the experience of Hotel USA had become irrelevant and the respondents while taking it into consideration again, have virtually proceeded against the decision of this Court upheld by the Supreme Court, which was binding on them in .the same contract for the same period. AIR 1979 SC 1628, AIR 1991 SC 1579, (1991) 1 SCC 492 and JT 2000 (6) SC 491 followed. [Para 48
(3) Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 (M.P.) - S. 6 (2) (a) -- person working as a manager of hotel -- his particulars should he found in registration -- particulars of hotel -- every change is also mentioned therein. [Para 54
(4) Contract -- interview illegally dispensed with -- action clearly discriminatory and unfair -- criteria unequally applied to candidates -- award of contract liable to he set aside. AIR 1990 SC 1031, (1991) 1 SCC 492 and (1995) I SCC 478 followed. [Paras 61 and 62]
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 – tender for running, restaurant and snack bars -- 5 years past experience is mandatory -- Court can intefere to fulfill the condition. AIR 1979 SC 1628 followed. [Para 19]
(6) Tender -- requirement in notice is of two categories -- condition or eligibility is essential -- others are subsidiary or ancillary to main object. (1991) 3 SCC 273 followed. [Para 20]
(7) Tender -- for contract of commercial transaction -- past experience is one of the relevant considerations. (1991) 1 SCC 492 followed. [Para 21]
(8) Tender -- condition of eligibility cannot he changed -- it must always be observed. JT 2000 (6) SC 491 followed. [Para 22]
(9) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- tender -- interference by Court should he on consideration of delaying the project or to cater to substantial amount of public interest – malafide transaction may also be looked into. (1991) 1 SCC 492 followed. [Para 23]
(10) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- contract -- Court does not sit in appeal -- it has to find out legality -- it has also to rule whether decision making authority has exceeded its power or committed error of law or breach of rules of natural justice. AIR 1996 SC 11 followed. [Para 24]
(11) Constitution of India – Art. 226 -- lender, contract etc -- Court can examine decision making process -- interference is called for if it is found to be initialed by malafides, unreasnableness and arbitrariness. (2000) 2 SCC 617 followed. [Para 25]
(12) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- grant of Contract -irrelevant factors taken into consideration -- grant was struck down. (1993) I SCC 445 followed. [Para 26]
(13) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226, 298 and 14 -- Stale executive powers under Art. 298 in entering in contract -- Art. 14 is applicable -- State action may be checked under Art. 14. AIR 1990 SC 1031 followed. [Para 27]
(14) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- policy-decision making -judicial review is not permissible. (1996) 9 SCC 709 followed. [Para 28]
(15) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 – contract -- High Court cannot assume role of selection committee and evaluate fitness of candidate. (1993) 1 SCC 17 followed. [Para 30]
(16) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- one the clauses of tender notice not fulfilled -- High Court rightly set aside the award of contract. JT 2000 (6) SC 491 followed. [Para 33]
¼1½ fufonk & [kkuiku vkfn dh lafonk ds fy, fufonk && nks lwpukvksa esa lk{kkRdkj dh ‘krZ fofgr && lk{kkRdkj ds fcuk lafonk dks vafre :i nsuk fof/k dh n`f"V ls nks"kiw.kZ gSA
vihykFkhZ ;kph }kjk ;g varjU;k;ky;hu vihy] çR;FkhZ Ø-10 deys‘k dqekj feJk dks 1999 ls 2002 dh vof/k ds fy, lafonk ds çnku dks vfHk[kafMr djus ds fy, çLrqr dh xbZ gSA çR;FkhZ Ø-10 dks ik¡p o"kZ & 1997 ls 2002 & rd ds fy, çnÙk lafonk] eqdnesckth ds çFke pj.k esa vfHk[kafMr dh xbZ Fkh rFkk bl U;k;ky; }kjk fufnZ"V fd;k x;k Fkk fd ‘ks"k vof/k ds fy, vkosnu vkeaf=r djus ds i‘pkr~ u, fljs ls fopkj fd;k tk, D;ksafd çR;FkhZ Ø-10 dks [kkuiku dk vuqHko ugha Fkk rFkk çLrqr ;kph }kjk Qkby dh xbZ iwoZrj ;kfpdk esa ftlesa ;kph mPpre U;k;ky; rd lQy jgk] vkf{kIr lafonkvksa dk çnku vfHk[kafMr dj fn;k x;kA ¿iSjk 1
çR;FkhZ&jsy dh vksj ls fo}ku dkmUlsy us fuosnu fd;k gS fd iwoZrj fjV ;kfpdk&ysVlZ isVsaV vihy esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk] rFkk mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh fd, x, funs‘kksa ds vuqlkj lk{kkRdkj ugha djus dk fofu‘p; fd;k x;k Fkk D;ksafd funs‘k] uhfr ds vfrfu;fefu"B vuqlj.k esa u, fljs ls p;u djus dk Fkk( vr%] lk{kkRdkj ugha fd;k x;k rFkk tkjh fd;k x;k foKkiu bl lhek rd uhfr ds fo#) FkkA ¿iSjk 41
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjh jk; esa] nksuksa foKkiuksa esa ;g mYys[k gks tkus ij fd lk{kkRdkj fd;k tk,xk] çR;FkhZ Ø-1 ls 9 dks] vkosndksa dks lk{kkRdkj ds fy, cqyk, fcuk p;u dh vafre Lo:i nsus dh Lora=rk ugha FkhA bldk çR;k[;ku ugha fd;k x;k gS fd ,slh lafonkvksa ds çnk; dks vafre Lo:i nsus ls iwoZ lk{kkRdkj djus dh jsy dh fujarj çFkk jgh gSA bl ekeys esa] tk¡p djus ij lk{kkRdkj ds fy, mi;qDr ik, x, fofHkUu vkosndksa dks ugha cqykus dk fofu‘p; djus ds fy, fdlh fof/kekU; dkj.k dk fo|eku gksuk n‘kkZ;k ugha x;k gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø-4394@1997 vFkok ysVlZ isVsaV vihy Ø- 24@1999 esa tkjh dh xbZ fjV esa] lk{kkRdkj fooftZr djus dk dksbZ funs‘k ugha gSA ¿iSjk 42
¼2½ vuqKfIr % vuqHkofoghu vH;FkhZ dks [kkuiku@foØ; dh vuqKfIr dk vkcaVu && vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSaA
[kkuiku&foØ; dh vuqKfIr ds vkcaVu ds fy, Kkiu fnukad 6-1-1992 esa ;Fkk varfoZ"V jsy uhfr eas mfYyf[kr gS fd laoh{kk ds ç;kstu ds fy, [;kfr@dkjksckj dh çfr"Bk O;kikjorZ ;fn dksbZ gks] [kkuiku dk vuqHko] foÙkh; vofLFkfr] LFkkiuk dk vkdkj rFkk miØe ds fy, visf{kr deZpkfjo`an dh la[;k] miØe dk voLFkku] vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Nk¡Vus ds fy, vkosnu dh laoh{kk djus ds ç;kstukFkZ lqlaxr ekunaM gSa] tcfd p;u] Nk¡Vs x, vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls p;u] Nk¡Vs x, vH;fFkZ;ksa dh (i) [;kfr] (ii) lkeF;Z] (iii) vuqHko rFkk (iv) iwoZo`Ùk ds vfHkys[k ij vk/kkfjr gksuk gksrk gSA ¿iSjk 47
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % çLrqr ekeys esa] çR;FkhZ Ø-10 ls ik=rk dh ‘krZ iwjh ugha gks jgh Fkh D;ksafd gksVy ;w ,l ,] lruk dk mldk vuqHko iwoZrj fjV ;kfpdk esa udkj fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk iwoZrj fjV ;kfpdk esa gksVy clsjk ds vuqHko dk nkok ugha fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk mikc) nLrkost dk mn~Hko lansgkLin gSA çR;FkhZ Ø-1 ls 9 }kjk gksVy ;w ,l , rFkk gksVy clsjk ds vuqHko ij fopkj fd;k x;k gSS ftlls mudk fofu‘p; nwf"kr gks x;k gSA iwoZrj fjV ;kfpdk esa bl U;k;ky; ds fu"d"kZ dh n`f"V ls gksVy ;w ,l , ds vuqHko ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] gksVy ;w ,l , dk vuqHko vlaxr gks x;k Fkk rFkk ml ij iqufoZpkj djrs le; çR;FkhZx.k us oLrqr%] mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ekU; Bgjk, x, bl U;k;ky; ds ml fofu‘p; ds fo#) dk;Zokgh dh gS ml vof/k ds fy, mlh lafonk esa mu ij ck/;dkjh FkkA , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 1628] , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 1579] ¼1991½ 1 ,l lh lh 492 rFkk ts Vh 2000 ¼6½ ,l lh 491 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 48
¼3½ nqdku rFkk LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1958 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 6¼2½ ¼d½ && gksVy ds çca/kd ds :i esa dk;Zjr O;fDr && gksVy ds jftLVªhdj.k ds fooj.k esa mldk fooj.k çkIr gksuk pkfg, && gksVy dk fooj.k && mlesa çR;sd cnyko Hkh mfYyf[kr gksrk gSA ¿iSjk 54
¼4½ lafonk & lk{kkRdkj ls voS/kr% NwV nh xbZ & ÑR; Li"Vr% foHksndkjh rFkk v_tq gS&vHfFkZ;ksa dks ekunaM vlekur% ykxw fd, x, && lafonk dk çnku vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 1031] ¼1991½ 1 ,l lh lh 492 rFkk ¼1995½ 1 ,l lh lh 478 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 61 ,oa 62
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && mikgkjx`g rFkk uk‘rkx`g pykus ds fy, fufonk & ik¡p o"kZ dk fiNyk vuqHko vkKkid gS & ‘krZ iwjh djus ds fy, U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 1628 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 19
¼6½ fufonk && dh lwpuk dh vis{kk,¡ nks oxks± dh gksrh gSa && ik=rk dh ‘krZ vko‘;d gksrh gS & vU; ‘krs± eq[; mís‘; ds leuq"kaxh vFkok vkuq"kafxd gksrh gSA ¼1991½ 3 ,l lh lh 273 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 20
¼7½ fufonk && okf.kfT;d laO;ogkj dh lafonk ds fy, & fiNyk vuqHko] lqlaxr fopkj;ksX; ckrksa esa ls ,d gSaA ¼1991½ 1 ,l lh lh 492 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 21
¼8½ fufonk & ik=rk dh ‘krZ cnyh ugha tk ldrh & mldk lnk ikyu fd;k tkuk gh gksxkA ts Vh 2000¼6½ ,l lh 491 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 22
¼9½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 && fufonk & U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi] ifj;kstuk esa foyac vFkok i;kZIr ek=k esa yksd fgr dh iwfrZ djus ds fopkj ij gksuk pkfg, & vln~Hkkfod laO;ogkj dh Hkh tk¡p dh tk ldrh gSaA ¼1991½ 1 ,l lh lh 492 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 23
¼10½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-226 & lafonk & U;k;ky; }kjk vihy esa rF;ksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkrk & mls oS/krk dk irk yxkuk gksrk gS & mls ;g Hkh fofu.khZr djuk gksrk gS fd D;k fofu‘p; djus okys çkf/kdkjh us viuh ‘kfDr ls ijs dk;Z fd;k gS vFkok fof/k dh xyrh dh gS vFkok uSlfxZd U;k; ds fu;eksa dk Hkax fd;k gSA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 11 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 24
¼11½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 & fufonk] lafonk vkfn & U;k;ky; }kjk fofu‘p; dh çfØ;k dk ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gS & og vln~Hkko] v;qfDr;qDr rFkk euekuh ls nwf"kr ik, tkus ij gLr{ksi okaNuh; gSA ¼2000½ 2 ,l lh lh 617 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 25
¼12½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-226 & lafonk dk çnku & vlaxr ckrksa ij fopkj fd;k x;k&çnku fo[kafMr dj fn;k x;kA ¼1993½ 1 ,l lh lh 445 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 26
¼13½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-226] 298 rFkk 14 && lafonk djus ds ckjs esa vuq-298 ds v/khu jkT; dh dk;Zdkjh ‘kfDr & vuq-14 ykxw gksrk gSa & vuq-14 ds v/khu jkT; dh dkjZokbZ dh iM+rky dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 1031 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 27
¼14½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-226 & uhfr&fofu‘p;u & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu vuqKs; ugha gSA ¼1996½ 9 ,l lh lh 709 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 28
¼15½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-226 & lafonk & U;k;ky; }kjk p;u lfefr dh Hkwfedk /kkfjr dj vH;FkhZ dh mi;qDrk dk ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼1993½ 1 ,l lh lh 17 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 30
¼16½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-226 & fufonk lwpuk ds ,d [kaM dh iwfrZ ugha gqbZ & mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk lafonk dk çnku Bhd gh vikLr fd;k x;kA ts Vh 2000 ¼6½ ,l lh 491 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 33
Mishra, J. -- 1. This intra-Court appeal has been preferred by appellant/petitioner for quashing grant of contract to Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, respondent No. 10 for the period 1999 to 2002. Contract granted for five years - 1997 to 2002 -- to respondent No. 10 was quashed in the first round of litigation and this Court directed consideration to be made afresh after inviting applications for the remaining period as respondent No. 10 lacked catering experience and grant of impugned contracts were quashed in the earlier writ petition filed by present petitioner, in while he succeeded upto the Supreme Court against the grant in favour of Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, which is in question, for running of tea, coffee, sweets. namkin; fruit stalls and for grant of contract for vegetarian and non-vegetarian refreshment room at Mankipur Railway Station.
2. The case has a chequered history. The first round of litigation which concluded upto the Apex Court is relevant to take notice here. An advertisement was published initially on 10.11.1996 inviting tenders for catering of snacks and fruits and for refreshment rooms respectively and applications were invited for awarding contract from reputed and established business concerns as per the policy of the Railway for allotment of catering/vending licence, according to which the reputed caterers could apply. Business standing was relevant criterion along with catering experience and financial standing being other relevant factors, a selection committee met and interviewed the persons. Under the First advertisement dated 10.11.1996, the selection of respondent No. 10 Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, which stands quashed, was made with a view to enable induction of youth and dynamism in the area of-catering. The selection was challenged in Writ Petition No. 4394/97 which was decided by this Court on 6.1.1999 and learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the experience of Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, respondent No. 10 herein, as honorary manager of USA (Ustad Shakeel Ahmed) Hotel (hereinafter referred to "Hotel USA.") cannot be taken to be any experience at all in the field of catering. This Court came to the conclusion, in previous writ petition, that the selection of respondent No. 10 on the pretext to induct youth and dynamism was against the policy and norms laid down which were not adhered to. It was found that there was deviation from the laid down policy and the standard of fairness in selection were not observed. Hence, the writ petition was allowed' and fresh Selection Committee was directed to be constituted for the two catering contracts at Manikpur Railway Station and it was directed that the Railway should take a decision strictly in terms of the laid down policy. The decision of the Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4394/1997 dated 6.1.1999 was challenged in LPA No. 24/1999 by the respondent No. 10. A Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order and also took note of various shortcomings of the respondent No. 10 and various irregularities committed by him under the grant and also the fact that he was fined Rs. 1,000/- for having been found guilty of paying less wages to the employees than shown in the register and for not maintaining the proper record. It was mentioned that volume of the sales was being undercost and on random check of the THALI, items' weight was found to be less than what was prescribed for the standard THALI, too much salt was found to be present in the SABJIS, tea powder was found to be of very sub-standard quality. PETHA was found being sold from the stall though this item was not authorised for sale and said item was sold at the rate of Rs. 25/- per kg as per marked price and weight on the packet. On weighment the packet was found to be only 600 grams. PAN stall was found in operation, while the sale of it was restricted. Sweets were not served. Both, dry and wet DAL, SABJI and Curd were found to be of lesser weight than prescribed to be
