W.P.A. 3773 of 2025

13.3.2025 Abdul Haque Laskar sl. 12 vs sk, ct.25, Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Saptarshi Roy Ms. S.S.Shah Ms. Gargi Roy …for the petitioner Mr. Ganga Prasad Mukherjee Mr. Subrata Santra …for the UOI/respondent no. 1-3.

Affidavit of service as well as the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

The writ petitioner has held a contract of parking space with the respondent Railways, for the parking space at Lakkhikantapur Railway Station His contract has terminated on January 25, 2025.

After termination of contract with him, the respondent Railways have floated new tender and obtained the highest bidder for operation of the parking space at Lakkhikantapur Railway Station. The present petitioner earlier has moved this Court to pray for extension of his contract so terminated due to efflux of time and the matter travelled to the Hon’ble Division Bench in MAT 127 of 2025. The Hon’ble Division Bench by dint of its order dated January 29 2025, has been pleased to hold that there would not be any scope under the existing policy- guidelines for extension of the existing contract of the petitioner unless and until the three exceptional circumstances have emerged, as mentioned in the said policy-guidelines. Those exceptional circumstances are as follows:

i) Open tender floated in advance but could not be finalized due to unavoidable administrative circumstances;

ii) Open tender floated in advance but could not be finalized due to poor response; and iii) Subsequent quotations could not be obtained due to poor response.

According to the writ petitioner such exceptions emerged only after disposal of the appeal by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide the said order dated January 29 2005, as the successful bidder in the new tender process has withdrawn his bid and candidature and did not want to proceed further with the contract. In support of such contention, the petitioner has produced copy of a letter of the said successful bidder addressed to the respondent Railways dated February 5, 2005.

Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as a result of the same a vacuum has been created with all propensities to jeopardize the public service regarding operation of the parking space at Lakkhikantapur Railway Station.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate, who has represented the petitioner, has referred to a Clause in the Model Schedule of Powers, 2018, issued by the Ministry of Railway, Government of India. He submits that such provision has been made only to combat such impasse as has been created as regards the parking space in Lakkhikantapur Railway Station after withdrawal of the candidature by the highest bidder in the subsequent tender process and due to lack of operator.

He says that according to the said Schedule of Powers, if there is a lack of response for open tender, contract can be awarded in accordance with the terms of the said Schedule of Power 2018, on quotation basis, for a limited period, of three months at-a-time.

The writ petitioner who has earlier prayed for extension of his contract but has failed to establish his case before the Court of law, is now praying before the respondent authority that in terms of the said provision of the Schedule of Power 2018 his contract may be extended for a period as stipulated in the said rules, in view of the current impasse as created due to withdrawal of his candidature as the successful bidder in the tender process.

In this regard he has written a letter dated February 11, 2005, to the concerned officers of the respondent Railways, which is stated to have not attracted any attention of the said authorities, as yet. Thus, in this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for due consideration of his representation dated February 11, 2025, submitted before the respondent.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appears for the respondent Railways.

So far as the petitioner’s claim that in the subsequent tender process the highest bidder has thereafter withdrawn his bid and ca