VIJENDER JAIN, C.J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers: "1. Issue writ in the nature of Prohibition thereby prohibiting the Respondents from taking any actions in pursuance to the Tender Notice qua item No. 4 published in the Indian Express dated 24-11-2006. 2. direct the Respondents to withdraw Tender Notice published in the Indian Express dated 24-11-2006 qua item No. 4 which is in complete violation of the order dated 2-3-2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2321 of 2006. 3. the records of the case may kindly be summoned from the Respondents. 4. prior service to the Respondents may kindly be dispensed with and the petitioner be allowed to file second set of writ petition with annexures in photostat; 5. the filing of the certified copies of the annexures may kindly be dispensed with; It is further prayed that as an ad interim measure the Respondents No. 1 to 4 be restrained from proceeding further with the Tender Notice qua item No. 4 published in the Indian Express dated 24-11-2006 for reasons that the Tender qua item No. 4 has already been awarded to the Petitioner pursuant to the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 2-3-2006 in CWP No. 2321 of 2006 and further not to open the tender qua item No. 4 or any other interim order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice".
(2.) Mr. Chopra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the instant petition has contended that when the earlier writ petition i.e. C.W.P. No. 2321 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner in relation to the contract in question, the petition was allowed and the Division Bench of this Court quashed the contract awarded to respondent No. 5 in the said writ petition. The said respondent had given a bid of Rs. 2.29 crores whereas the petitioner had given a bid of Rs. 1.7 crores. The petition was allowed with the following directions to the respondent Railways : "This we leave it open to the Railways to re-advertise the tender in question. However, the respondent-Railways would be at liberty to continue with the arrangement which is in progress. This, of course, has to be on payment of an amount calculated as per the bid amount given as highest bid".
(3.) Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to the aforesaid mandate issued by this Court, the petitioner had been required to deposit a sum of Rs. 89,86,278/- for the period indicated in the communication dated August 4,2006, copy Annexure P-6 and that the arrears of license fee and FDR in the sum of Rs. 3,82,728/- was also required to be deposited. The petitioner in response thereto deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,21,14,934/- to continue to display the hoardings on the entry and exit road of Chandigarh Railway Station. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, the railway authorities have issued advertisements while publishing the same in different newspapers and that one of them is "Indian Express" for awarding the publicity/advertising contract in the vicinity of Chandigarh Railway Station (item No. 4) vide which the petitioner had already submitted the tender and had been required to deposit the amount, which stood deposited accordingly as aforesaid. Once having exercised their option for continuing the arrangement offered by the petitioner, the Railway authorities were not entitled to re-advertise the tender accordingly.;