Tharu and Sons v. The General Manager

ORDER By consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶2The present writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second Respondent to consider the Expression of Interest submitted by petitioner on 11.04.2026, and include petitioner in list of service providers to be freshly empanelled.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of laundry, housekeeping, on board housekeeping services, bedroll management services, mechanized and manual cleaning services, etc. for the Indian Railway for over 25 years. He would Page3 of 9 submit that second respondent issued a notice dated 20.03.2026 to petitioner, inviting Expressions Of Interest (EOI) for empanelment of service providers for implementation of the reformed on-board service policy in the Southern Railway.

3.1. Learned counsel would further submit that the expression of interest contemplated that future tenders would be invited only from entities that were successfully empanelled as service providers. In other words empanelment is a condition precedent/prerequisite for participation in the tender process. He would further submit that petitioner submitted its expression of interest on

11.04.2026 along with prescribed documents and annexures. He would also submit that respondents neither acknowledged petitioner's submission of its Expression of Interest nor communicated any decision as to the rejection of petitioner's request or application for empanelment.

3.2. Learned counsel would then submit that as a matter of fact, second respondent had finalised the list of empanelled service providers. Petitioner thereafter submitted representations dated 25.05.2026, 26.05.2026 and

05.06.2026 requesting second respondent to indicate the status of its expression of interest, while also objecting to its exclusion, inasmuch as according to the petitioner, it satisfies the eligibility criteria. Thereafter, there has been tenders which have been floated, inasmuch petitioner was not empanelled in list of Page4 of 9 service providers, it was disqualified/disabled from participating in those tenders. Under these circumstances, petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus seeking the aforementioned prayer.

¶4Learned counsel for respondents would submit that petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, more particularly Clause 7 of the Notice for Expressions of Interest for Empanelment of service provider for implementation of the reformed on-board service policy in Southern Railway which sets out a number of criteria: page 48 & 49 ................ Page5 of 9 Page6 of 9 Page7 of 9

4.1. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner may not have a right to be informed of the reasons for its disqualification as it is within the discretion of second respondent to empanel or reject empanelment of an applicant. He would submit, on instructions, that petitioner does not satisfy the criteria set out in Clause 7 of the above notification. He would also submit that since the petitioner has now approached this Court, the respondents would furnish the reasons for finding that the petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria. Agreed to by the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶5Recording the submission, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of uploading of web copy without waiting for receipt of certified copy of the order. It is always open to petitioner on being furnished with the reasons to work out its remedy in accordance with law, including the right to seek empanelment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the case on its own merits and in accordance with law. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 18-06-2026 jv Page8 of 9 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To

¶1The General Manager Southern Railway, 6th Floor, NGO Annex, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

¶2The Chief Rolling Stock Engineer

(Chg), Office of the Principal Chief Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, 6th Floor, NGO Annex, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

¶3The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Chennai Division, Southern Railway, 6th Floor, NGO Annex, Park Town, Chennai-03.

¶4The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thycadu.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala-695014. WPoNo.o23027oofo2026 MOHAMMEDoSHAFFIQ,oJ. jv WPoNo.o23027oofo2026 18-06-2026 Page9oofo9

Page1 of 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and WMP Nos.24953, 24954 and 24955 of 2026 Tharu & Sons 2nd Floor, Kalamassery Service Co- Operative Bank Building , North Kalamassery, Near Metro Pillar No.250 Kalamassery, P.O., Ernakulam District, Kerala- 683 104 Represented by its Managing Partner Mr.Antony Tharu. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The General Manager Southern Railway, 6th Floor, NGO Annex, Park Town, Chennai- 600 003. 2. The Chief Rolling Stock Engineer (Chg), Office of the Principal Chief Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway, 6th Floor, NGO Annex, Park Town, Chennai-600 003. 3. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Chennai Division, Southern Railway, 6th Floor, NGO Annex, Park Town, Chennai-03. 4. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thycadu.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala- 695014. Page2 of 9 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the Expression of Interest Submitted by the Petitioner on 11.04.2026 and issue a fresh empaneled list of service providers including the petitioner. For Petitioner(s): Mr. Thriyambak J.Kannan For Respondent(s): Mr. P.T.Ramkumar, Standing Counsel for R1 to R3.