Creed Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs Eastern Railways

Sanjib Banerjee, J.—There does not appear to be any basis to the writ petitioners invoking this extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage. The petitioner-company was an agent of a Spanish company which made a bid following a global tender floated by the railways for printing of train tickets. The petitioner-company was indicated as the Indian agent of the Spanish company in the bid papers and a letter of intent has been issued to the Spanish company. The petitioners suggest that the petitioners'' infrastructure in India was the basis for the Spanish company's bid, but the railways have not taken appropriate steps upon the petitioner-company's agency being terminated by the Spanish company and the petitioners informing the railways of such position.

The petitioners refer to a letter dated November 12, 2012 issued by the railways to both the Spanish company Office notes, reports, Orders or proceedings with signature and to the petitioner-company demanding a demand draft or bank guarantee for a sum of 10 percent of the FOB value. The petitioners also place the final paragraph of the letter that indicates that upon the issuance of the letter there was a concluded contract between the railways and the bidder.

The petitioners say that despite the petitioners informing the railways of the termination of the agency, the railways have kept silent and it is necessary that appropriate orders be passed to ensure that the petitioners are not prejudiced in any manner by reason of the contents of the bid which referred to the petitioners'' facilities and infrastructure as part of the bidder's facilities.

It does not appear that the petitioners have any immediate cause of action against the railways. There appears to be a dispute between the petitioner-company and its erstwhile Spanish principals and the petitioners cannot demonstrate any steps adverse to the interest of the petitioners that the railways have taken that can be addressed in this jurisdiction. The petition seems to reflect the petitioners'' disappointment at the Spanish company terminating the agency rather than any genuine grievance against the railways.

W.P. No. 18461 (W) of 2013 is dismissed; but the petitioners are left free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law against the railways upon any act or conduct of the railways prejudicing the petitioner-company.

The respondents have not been called upon. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for will be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.