Ranjeet Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.17782 of 2016 dt.08-05-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17782 of 2016 =========================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Son of Late Vishwanath Prasad Resident of Mohalla- Azad Colony, P.S. kazipur, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur

2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur

3. The Divisional Rail Manager (D.R.M.) Commercial, East Central Railway, Sonepur

4. The Station Superintendent, East Central Railway, Muzaffarpur

5. The Commercial Superintendent, East Central Railway, Muzaffarpur

6. Bipin Kumar Son of Shri Kapileshwar Choudhary Resident of Old Mai Asthan Maripur, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Railway : Mr. Shatrughna Pandey, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Railway.

In this case the petitioner is seeking quashing of letter no. C/536/2015 dated 31.08.2016 issued by Divisional Rail Manager Commercial, East Central Railway, Sonepur, whereby and whereunder, it has been claimed by the petitioner that the condition of the selection has been changed, which is completely a wrong submission, as the condition of selection has not been changed, but after selection, the rate of parking has been changed. Again the tender

Patna High Court CWJC No.17782 of 2016 dt.08-05-2017 no. C/536/2015 dated 06.05.2016 was invited for operating and maintaining the parking stand situated at main gate side of Muzaffarpur Railway Station premises for the period of three years. The petitioner could not be selected and ultimately, the private respondent was selected as a contractor and as has been claimed by the petitioner that after two days vide letter no. C/536/parking stand/Muzaffapur/2015 dated 13.07.2016, the rate of parking has been revised. The changing of parking rate does not mean that the condition of the tender rate has been changed. This court is not inclined to interfere in this order. The petitioner, if so advised, may make complaint before the appropriate authority.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition is dismissed. (Shivaji Pandey, J.) Vinita/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 15/05/2017 Transmission Date NA