Petitioner challenged a matter on grounds that selection conditions changed, but the court held the parking rate revision was not a change in selection conditions, dismissing the petition.
The petition was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to make a complaint before the appropriate authority.
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.
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
.... .... 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 |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | NA |
| Uploading | 15/05/2017 |
| Date | |
| Transmission Date |
NA |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order regarding a change in parking rates after contract selection.
Ranjeet Kumar
Union of India
East Central Railway
Bipin Kumar
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
