B.Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of the Union of India and is directed against the order dated April 22, 2002 passed by a learned single Judge thereby allowing a writ application filed by the respondents by setting aside the decision of the Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway dated 5th October, 2001 and directing the present appellants to allot the S.T.D./P.C.O. booths in different Stations in the Sealdah Division, Eastern Railway after finalising the tender-process in accordance with the policy of the year 2000 taken by the Railway Administration without any further delay.
(2.) Being dissatisfied, the Eastern Railway represented by the Union of India has come up with the present mandamus-appeal.
(3.) The facts giving rise to filing of this mandamus-appeal may be epitomized thus: (a) Applications were invited from the handicapped unemployed youth and ladies for allotment of S.T.D./P.C.O. booths in different stations under the Sealdah Division by the Railway authority on 26th February, 2000 but such advertisements were treated to be cancelled due to administrative reason on 12th July, 2000. (b) In the meantime, on 28th April, 2000 a revised-policy-guideline for allotment of S.T.D./P.C.O. booths was issued by the Ministry of Railways and pursuant to such policy-decision, the Divisional Railway Manager, Sealdah Division, issued advertisements in the newspapers inviting sealed tender in two-packet-system on 10th September, 2000 for allotment of S.T.D./P.C.O. booths in different Stations under the Sealdah Division. The writ petitioners dropped their sealed tenders on 11th September, 2000. (c) On 29th March, 2001 the Deputy Regional Manager published the form numbers to those participants who were found successful in form 'A' system thereby informing that the packet 'B' would be opened on 4th April, 2001. The writ peitioners were all found successful in tender form 'A' system. (d) On April 4, 2001 the Tender Committee opened the financial bids/packet 'B' system in the presence of the writ petition of the writ petitioners and other successful bidders in packet 'A' system and subscribed the names of the highest bidders in tabulation sheet for allotments of S.T.D./P.C.O. booths of different Stations under Sealdah Division and the writ petitioners were found successful. (e) As the Railway authority did not allot the S.T.D./P.C.O. booths to the successful applicants, the writ petitioners on 18th July, 2001 made representation for allotment of S.T.D./P.C.O. booths. On 25th July, 2001 the Chief Commercial Manager (PS) wrote to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway that the Executive Director informed that the amendment of the guideline of the year 2000 regarding allotment of S.T.D./P. C.O. booths would be finalised within a fortnight and he was advised not to refund the earnest money taken from the writ petitioners. (f) On 5th September, 2001, the Chief Commercial Manager further informed the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager that the decision was still awaited and asked him to return the Bank- draft or B.G. Bond to the applicants. (g) On 27th September, 2001 the writ application out of which the present mandamus appeal has arisen was filed thereby praying for direction upon the respondents to allow the S.T.D./I.S.D./P.C.O. booths on different Stations under the Sealdah Division in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the tenders issued on the basis of the policy-decision of the year 2000. (h)The present appellants filed affidavit-in-opposition to the aforesaid writ application thereby contending that the Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway by a letter dated 5th September, 2001 intimated to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of various Divisions including the Sealdah Division that subject matter had been referred to the Railway Board for detailed clarification and further advised the concerned Officer to return the Bank Draft to the bidders with further information that the selection made recently for filling up the S.T.D./P.C.O. booths in accordance with the policy-decision of the year 2000 should be cancelled. According to the Union of India, a new policy-decision has already been taken on the date of delivery of the Judgment impugned herein for grant of S.T.D./P.C.O. booths and as such, the writ petitioner cannot now be given appointment on the basis of process of tender which was initiated in the year 2000 and was kept in abeyance during the pendency of the writ application. (i) The learned single Judge by the order impugned herein by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feeds Industries, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1601 held that even in contractual sphere the State and its instrumentalities are required to conform to the Article 14 of the Constitution and by applying the aforesaid principle held that in the present case, the respondent authorities wrongly took decision of abandoning the tender procedure in respect of allotments of S.T.D./P.C.O. booths even after selecting the candidates as per policy-decision prevailing at that time. His Lordship further held that no opportunity was given to the successful candidates before taking the aforesaid decision even though the interest of the successful candidates were likely to be affected by the said decision and such decision of the respondent authority was totally unreasonable.;