Rakesh Kumar Singh v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4999 of 2015 =========================================================== Rakesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Kameshwar Singh, resident of Flat No. 201, Sameshwari Apartment, Subhjit Path, Pandui Kothi, P.S. Budha Colony, Patna 13. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India, Ministry of Railways, through Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Director Traffic Commercial (G) Railway Board Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. Director Finance Accounts, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

4. General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur.

5. Divisional Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur.

6. F.A. & C.A.O. East Central Railway, Hajipur.

7. Chief Medical Superintendent, East Central Railway, Danapur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ashish Sinha, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 27-03-2017 Inter alia contending that the Ministry of Railway took a policy decision vide Annexure-1 on 2nd of December, 2014 to convert 50 major Railway Stations identified throughout the country for the purpose of integrated cleanliness through outsourcing to provisional/reputed agencies and inter alia contending that contrary to the scheme outsourcing of cleaning work in the Patna Junction Railway Station has been granted to unidentified and inexperienced persons this writ petition has been filed in public interest.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4999 of 2015 dt.27-03-2017 2/2

2. From the counter affidavit filed by the Railway administration it is seen that in accordance to the scheme tenders were floated and based on the process of tendering, the best available offer has been accepted and contract awarded.

3. Taking note of the nature of grievance made by the petitioner and considering the fact that Annexure-1 is only a policy guideline issued by the Railway administration, in the matter of issuance of contract, we see no reason to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction, particularly in a petition filed in public interest by the petitioner. Petitioner may ventilate his grievance with the Ministry of Railway or the Railway Board and they are the authorities who may look into the matter. We are not inclined to interfere into the matter.

4. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 28.03.2017 Transmission Date