In a writ petition regarding rejection of supplied routers by South Central Railways, the High Court held that the dispute is purely contractual involving disputed questions of fact and is not maintainable under Article 226, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wpl2956-17.doc
1/5
Pvr
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2956 OF 2017
Atlantis Enterprises
...Petitioner
Versus
1.Union Of India
2.General Manager
3.Dy.CMM, S & T., South Central Railways
4.Dy. CSTE, PRS and SC, South Central Railways
5.Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railways ...Respondents
Mr.Kushagra Bansal with Mr.Rutwik Rao, for the Petitioner.
Mr.T.J.Pandian, for the Respondents.
CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & G. S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 30 NOVEMBER 2017
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
supplying information and technology equipments like printers, routers, desktops, servers etc., participated in the tender dated 1 September 2016
wpl2956-17.doc
2/5
Pvr
issued by the respondent-South Central Railways. This tender was for supply of port routers for tier II locations as seen from the tender title (Exhibit “A”). Thereafter, on 19 September 2016 a revised tender was issued being tender No.59165056 and 59165063. The petitioner was declared as 'L-1' bidder in the said tender. Respondents addressed a letter dated 22 December 2016 to the petitioner seeking some clarification in regard to the product/model number of the routers as mentioned in the quotation, which was replied by the petitioner by its letter dated 23 December 2016. Thereafter, a further clarification was sought by the respondents by its letter dated 2 January 2017 which was replied by the petitioner by its letter dated 4 January 2017. Thereafter by a letter dated 5 January 2017 the respondents sought a further confirmation from the petitioner in regard to the specifications. This was replied by the petitioner by its letter dated 9 January 2017. Thereafter, on 23 January 2017 the respondents issued a letter of advance acceptance in favour of the petitioner stating that the bid of the petitioner was accepted on the terms and conditions as contained in tender No.59165056.
no.52175007 dated 9 February 2017 for supply and installation of port routers for Tier I Locations. The respondents by its letter dated 2 March 2017 informed the petitioner that the bid of the petitioner was accepted on
the terms and conditions in tender No.59165063. On 6 March 2017 a
wpl2956-17.doc
3/5
Pvr
purchase order was issued in favour of the petitioner for purchase of two routers as per the agreed terms and conditions. Again on 8 March 2017 a purchase order came to be issued for another two routers with the due date of delivery as 8 June 2017. On 22 May 2017 the petitioner delivered the products as per the purchase order dated 8 March 2017 and raised the delivery challan No.17-18/017. On 20 March 2017 a third party inspection was conducted by the Rail India Technical and Economic Service (RITES) whereby the RITES certified that the routers are matching with the specifications of Make and Model as per tendered No.59165056. On 28 March 2017 the petitioner duly delivered the product under the tender No.59165056. In regard to this delivery, on 23 May 2017 a third party inspection was also conducted by the RITES. A 'power on test' was also conducted on the said routers.
wpl2956-17.doc
4/5
Pvr
Respondent No.5 replied the said representation reiterating the stand that the supply was not conforming to the technical specifications.
“a) To quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 08.09.2017 issued by the Respondent No.4 wherein the Respondent No.4 rejected the Routers provided by the Petitioner as they are not technically suitable with respect to RDSO Specifications No.RDSO/SPN/TC/84/2008; and
b) To direct the Respondents to give the complete
purchase orders in the favour of the Petitioner as per the Tender Documents for Tender No.59165056 and 59165063; and
c) To direct the Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner for the loss incurred by it due to the illegal actions of the Respondents; and
d) To stay the tendering process of the Tender Documents for Tender No.52175007 invited electronic tenders for the supply and installation of 17 Nos. 24 Port Routers for Tier I Locations as per RDSO Specifications No.RDSO/SPN/TC/84/2008 on 09.02.2017 as the Petitioner has been rejected due to its rejection in the first two tenders; ”
wpl2956-17.doc
5/5
Pvr
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Admittedly, the dispute between the parties is a contractual dispute. It is settled principle of law that once the parties enter into a contract and the terms and conditions of the contract are crystallized, then, the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the contract and such a dispute would not fall within the domain of public law. We therefore, refuse to entertain this petition in our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Apart from this, we see much substance in the contention as urged on behalf off the respondents that the entire cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as respondent no.2South Central Railways is having its headquarter at Secunderabad. It would have been more appropriate for the petitioner to approach the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad with his grievance.
(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a dispute over supply of technology equipment and rejection of goods based on technical specifications is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Atlantis Enterprises
Union Of India
General Manager, South Central Railways
Dy.CMM, S & T., South Central Railways
Dy. CSTE, PRS and SC, South Central Railways
Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railways
Shantanu Kemkar
G. S. Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
