N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 5942 of 2004, assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.1.2004, dismissing the writ petition. The prayer of the appellant in the said writ petition was for a direction to the concerned respondents to allot the City Park Restaurant at Bokaro Steel City to the petitioner in terms of Notice Inviting Tender No. TA/TC/4. 5/OT -2/27/7/17, dated 28.6.2004 issued by the Assistant General Manager (Tender Cell), SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, B.S. City and for quashing the direction, as contained in Reference No. TA/D/ 01/420/3026, dated 22.10.2004 issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner had been directed to close the restaurant and hand over the vacant possession. Subsequently, the petitioner also added a prayer for quashing the letter as contained in Reference No. TA/D/01/420/2044, dated 2.11.2004 whereby the writ petitioner was again directed to close the said restaurant and hand over the same to the respondents within a week from the date of the letter mentioning that the respondents have decided to allot the said restaurant to M/s. Daffodils Food, Bokaro Club Ltd., Sector V, B.S. City, Bokaro (respondent No. 5).
(2.) THE case of the appellant is : that he was awarded contract to run the restaurant, name, City Park Lake "Restaurant" situated at City Park, BS. City, Bokaro, initially, in the year 1988. Since then the appellant has been successfully and efficiently running the said restaurant. There was no complaint against them from any quarter. In view of the above, the competent authorities extended the agreement period from time to time till June, 2004. By Notice Inviting Tender No. TA/TC/04 -05/0T -2/27/07/17, dated 28.6.2004, the respondents came out with the notice inviting tenders from the eligible person for running the said City Park Lake 'Restaurant. ' The tender document has been made Annexure -2 to the memorandum of appeal. Responding to the said notice, the appellant submitted his tender. There were altogether three tenderers, namely, (1) Daffodils Caterers; (2) Saket Singh; and (3) Vasant Vihar Restaurant (appellant). As per the time schedule in the document, the technical bid of the tender was opened on 20th July, 2004 in presence of all the three tenderers. Among the three tenderers, the appellant alone fulfilled the eligibility criteria "having experience of running of similar type of restaurant for a period of minimum three years in their own name and style." However, the other tenderers were also allowed to participate in the price bid, though they had no experience of running of similar type of restaurant for a period of three years and the certificate which was enclosed with their tender paper was regarding experience of running the canteen. The appellant, against the said arbitrary action, made a representation before the respondent No. 2 on 29.7.2004. In the meantime, by Reference; No. TA/D/1803, dated 31.7.2004, the respondent No. 4 extended the period of the appellant 's earlier contract with a stipulation that the contract may be closed at any time by giving seven days ' notice. The appellant, thereafter, was allowed to participate in the price bid. The other contender M/s. Daffodils Food is a sub -contractor of Bokaro Club Ltd., who has no experience of running a restaurant. The said Bokaro Club Ltd. itself does not have any experience of running any restaurant of State Government/Central Government/Public Sector Undertaking. M/s. Daffodils Food, therefore, does not fulfill the criteria, as laid down under the clauses of Notice Inviting Tender. As per the eligibility criteria, the experience should be of running a restaurant and not canteen. 'Restaurant ' and 'Canteen ' are two different types of establishments and purposes of both are absolutely different. Experience of running a canteen cannot fulfill the requirement of experience of running a restaurant. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge, without appreciating the said fact and settled principle of law and even without directing the respondents to file counter affidavit, erroneously dismissed the appellant 'swrit petition.
(3.) IN this Court, two sets of counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents, one on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Limited and its officers and another by the respondent No. 5 - -proprietor of M/s. Daffodils Food.;