- (1.) THIS Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.3.2002 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition being writ petition No. 3326 of 2000 filed by the petitioner/appellant. The writ petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Railway Authority inviting tenders for the work of washing of Bed Roll linen clothes for Hatia and Bokaro division of South Eastern Railway.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner was that although he quoted lowest rate but the respondent/Railway Authority without any reasons or notice, disqualified him with sole intention to allot the work in favour 'of respondent No. 4. It appears that when this appeal was taken up for admission on 16.7.2002, learned counsel appearing for the parties including respondent No. 4 agreed to constitute a two members Committee of advocates to visit the spot and inspect the plant of respondent No. 4 and submit a report. The matter was again taken on 8.8.2002 when it was reported that respondent No. 4 did not have necessary and requisite wherewithal and sufficient infrastructure for the washing/dry cleaning etc. of the linen. During inspection, the Committee found three Industrial Washing Machines, two Non -Industrial Washing Machines and two Hydro Machines apart from one Dryer/Drying Tumbler. The Committee further reported that the total capacity of the plant could not be more than 100 -150 sheets per day. During hearing it was alleged that there was no electric connection in existence at the relevant time in the premises of respondent No. 4 and one connection was obtained in the name of Jasbir Singh which was domestic connection. This Court therefor passed order directing the General Manager, South Eastern Railway to ensure personally that he carries out by himself an inspection of the works of respondent No. 4 and make sure that respondent No. 4 is in a position with reference to his wherewithal, infrastructure, man power, expertise and other parameters to carry out the washing work and if he finds that respondent No. 4 lacks in any of these, to take steps to cancel his contract and re -tender the same. The matter was taken up on 17.1.2003 and a Bench of this Court passed the following order : 'A detailed order was passed on 8.8.2002 highlighting certain vital and important aspects relating to the conditions in which the used linen was being washed for reuse by the passengers travelling in the Air -conditioned Coaches of the trains. In paras 5 and 6 of that order, we had made certain pertinent observations with respect to certain shortcomings in the tendering process and the defects in the execution of the contracts. These observations were made because of the fact that allegations were forthcoming that washing of the linen was being carried out in very -very unhygienic conditions, not through the aid of Machines and that the contractors responsible for washing were indulging in various malpractices. Our paramount concern was the hygienic aspect of the washing because unhygienic washing had a direct and adverse bearing on the health of the passengers to whom the linen was supplied after it was supposedly washed. It is undisputed that the passengers are the ones who pay for the use of linen and that it is the sacred duty of the Railway Administration to ensure that the passengers are provided properly washed linen. It is in this background that we had directed the Railway Administration to submit to us its responses to the queries and the points raised in that order, particularly those contained in paras -5 and 6 thereof. One affidavit was filed by Mr. Arvind Jhamb, Director Traffic Commercial (General), Ministry of Railways on 30.10.2002, but since this affidavit was deficient in the sense that it did not conform to the requirements contained in our aforesaid order, we directed the respondents to file another affidavit. Mr. Jhamb has filed another affidavit on 14.1.2003 along with which he has enclosed a copy of the note dated 10.1.2003 of the Chairman, Railway Board. Certain other documents have also been enclosed with this affidavit of Mr. Jhamb. Whereas, we very sincerely and deeply appreciate the efforts of the Chairman, Railway Board and which to observe that he indeed appears to have taken deep personal interest and pains, in the true spirit of the observations contained and the directions issued in our order dated 8.8.2002, the affidavit of Mr. Jhamb is still deficient to the extent that the Railway Administration has not taken us in complete confidence in so far as the proposed stipulations that are to be contained in the future contracts of washing of the linen. We are saying so because this aspect is of vital and paramount public importance. We had expected that the respondents would produce before us the model contract for future so as to totally eliminate and avoid the possibilities of the public being taken for a ride in so far as the provision of a fully hygienically washed linen is concerned. We, accordingly, direct that through a fresh supplementary affidavit the respondents shall inform us and produce for our perusal all the relevant documents including the finally approved model contract for future. In para -4 of our aforesaid order dated 8.8.2002, we had made a mention of an affidavit filed on 10th July, 2002 by one Sri D. Kullu, Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Adra. In para -19 of that affidavit Mr. Kullu had tried to convey to this Court that the washing of linen in the works of respondent No. 4 was being carried out in most ideal and hygienic conditions and that there was nothing wrong with the washing of the linen in the works of respondent No. 4. Along with this affidavit he had filed a copy of Inspection Report dated 3.10.2001 by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Adra. Serious aspersions were cast and grave doubts were expressed by us, in para -4 of the aforesaid order with respect to the veracity and correctness of Mr. Kullu's statement made in the aforesaid affidavit whereby he by himself and by relying upon the doubtful report of Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Adra had tried to lead us in believe that everything was all right and that the washing of the linen was carried out in the works of respondent No. 4 in ideal conditions. As it later turned out, our doubts proved to be prima facie correct, in the sense that the two member Advocates Committee and other facts and circumstances did lead us to believe that the affidavit of Mr. D. Kullu perhaps was not based on true facts and that his reliance upon the doubtful report of Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Adra was also an attempt to mislead the Court. Actually with the latest affidavit of Mr. Arvind Jhamb, a copy of report by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway has also been filed, in which apparently even though the General Manager does not dispute the relevant facts in so far as the absence of the electric connection is concerned (or the absence of the Generator is also concerned) in an obvious attempt to sidetrack the matter and perhaps to protect or shield the aforesaid persons, the General Manger seems to have skirted, or avoided the issue with respect to the pin pointing of the blame, even in the light of the clear directions issued by the Chairman, Railway Board to hold an impartial and independent inquiry and to fix the responsibility, if any. As far as we are concerned, we prima facie are of the opinion. that the Inquiry report of the General Manger may not be reflecting the true position. At this stage, therefore, without formulating and expressing any final opinion, we seem to be prima facie of the view that perhaps the aforesaid two persons, namely, Mr. D. Kullu and the then Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Adra (whose report was relied upon by Mr. D. Kullu in his aforesaid affidavit) might have done such act. Which may amount to commit offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Before we proceed any further in the matter, in terms of Section 195, read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we would like to give an opportunity to the aforesaid two persons to show -cause to us in the light of the observations made hereinabove as to why prosecution against them under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code be not launched in a Court of competent jurisdiction. We direct Mr. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents to cause the personal appearance of these two persons in the Court on the next date. They shall file their show -cause also on the next date. A copy of this order shall be given to Mr. Modi, who shall ensure that these two persons are served a copy of this order so as to enable them to file the show cause. Let the matter appear on 18.2.2003.'
(3.) THE matter was again taken up on 8.4.2003 when this Court passed the following order : 'We have heard this matter in some detail specially in the context of the orders dated 8.8.2002 and 17.1.2003. Serious issues are required to be decided in the light of the developments that have taken place in view of the findings by this Court. Meanwhile, learned counsel for the Railways submitted that on the basis of the new stipulations as contained in the Circular (Annexure -A/7) issued by the Director Traffic, Commercial (General), Railway Board, New Delhi, which has been produced along with the supplementary affidavit filed on 11.2.2003, fresh tenders have been invited by the notice dated 31.3.2003 and tenders are to be opened on 1.5.2003. We think that in the circumstances and in public interest, it would be better to await the completion of the tendering processes before we further deal with the various aspects involved in the appeal and arising out of the prior orders of this Court. In that view of the matter, post this case on 10.6.2003. In the meantime, it is expected that the Railways will complete the fresh tendering processes expeditiously. Pursuant to the earlier direction of this Court, Mr. D. Kullu and Mr. G.C. Meena are present before this Court. They will appeal before this Court on 10.6.2003 with all the necessary information. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. P. Modi, counsel for the respondent Railways. ;