and held that the writ petitioner was the sole companypetitor to M s. Engineering Devices Controls EDC for the supply of spare parts in regard to GE governors.
It also rejected the companytention of the Railways that the tender numberice dated 9.12.1991 was rejected because the same was number in companyformity with the terms of the tender.
The High Court in the impugned order came to the companyclusion that on the basis of the material placed before it that the writ petitioner was manufacturing spare parts for GE governors and was supplying the same to various Divisions of the Indian Railways who had found it to be satisfactory and, in regard to which, as a matter of fact, some of these Divisions had also issued certificates of efficiency and appreciation.
Thereafter, while stopping the import of governors in regard to the spare parts required for replacement in the governors manufactured by General Electric Co., the Railways were approaching the local manufacturers.
Challenging this decision of the Railways both in regard to the policy purported to have been adopted by the Board as also the rejection of its tender, the writ petitioner moved the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus companymanding the respondents in the writ petition to finalise the offer of the writ petitioner regarding the tender and also for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 23.10.1992 written by the Director, Mechanical Engineering Tr.
Consequently, its tender was number acceptable to the Railways.
The High Court also rejected the companytention of the Railways based on Clause 16 of the Guidelines which gave a unilateral right to the Railways to reject the tender without assigning any reason.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are as follow The respondent M s. Dinesh Engineering Corporation hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner claims to manufacture certain spare parts of GE governors used by the Indian Railways to companytrol the speed in diesel locomotives.
Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, wherein it was informed that the Railway Board had reviewed the policy of purchase of GE EDC governor spares in the companytext of sophistication, companyplexity and high degree of precision associated with governors.
On 9.12.1991, it is stated that a tender was floated by the Controller of Stores, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, for supply of certain items of spare parts for use in GE governors.
As stated above, it is against this judgment that these appeals have been preferred before this Court.
It is stated that only the writ petitioner responded to the tender but its tender was number companysidered number was it rejected till 23.10.1992 on which date the writ petitioner received a letter from the Director, Mechanical Engineering Tr. ,
It also accepted the plea of the writ petitioner that the spare parts supplied by it were certified to have given satisfactory service by various Divisions of the Railways like the Central Railways etc.,
It also held that the policy put forth by railways in its letter dated 23.10.1992 amounted to creating a monopoly in favour of EDC and the same was wholly arbitrary and discriminatory.
With CA No.5625/1994 J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE, J. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.10.1993 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.12355/93 filed by the first respondent herein.
On the above basis, the High Court while allowing the writ petition held the orders of the Railways dated 14.7.1993 i.e. rejecting the tender of the writ petitioner and the letter dated 23.10.1992 reflecting the policy of the Railways in regard to purchase of spare parts for the governors were quashed.
It is stated that originally the diesel governor was manufactured only by M s. General Electric Company of the United States of America GE for short and till the year 1974, the same was being imported as also its spare parts.
in regard to purchase of spare parts.
