Satish Mandaokar v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Direct to conduct an enquiry and thereby on the basis of enquiry report pass orders as per law; (b) Direct the respondents to conduct an inquiry about the work orders and work awarded to the petitioner and meanwhile direction issued to the respondents not to take any action against the petitioner;

(c) Quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent no. 2 by way appointment as Member Traction, Railway Board, New Delhi and Writ of Mandamus directing respondents Authority to produce records in connection with appointment of respondent no. 2 to the post of Member Traction, Railway Board, New Delhi;

(d) to quash and set aside all the actions qua the work awarded/ completed during the tenure of respondent no.2 against the petitioner by misusing the position as member traction, railway board, new delhi or any other way.”

2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are set out hereinafter.

3. The petitioner runs a proprietorship firm which is involved in traction work, electrical and other developmental work. Previously, the petitioner has been allotted various projects by the respondent-Ministry of Indian Railways, Union of India (‘Ministry’).

4. Respondent no.2, Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, is an officer of the Indian Railways who was a Member Traction, Railway Board.

5. The petitioner’s company, i.e. M/S Quality Engineers and Contractors, participated in a tender dated 22nd May, 2015, for INR 9.55 crores, for the work of Design, Supply, Erection, Testing and Commissioning of 25 KV AC single phase OHE for the work of doubling including Modification of BP at Janghai and SSP at Janghai and SSP at Suriawan of Bhadoi-Janghai Section of Lucknow Division wherein the petitioner’s company was the Lowest 1 (‘L-1’) bidder. However, despite qualifying as an L-1, the respondent-Ministry did not award the tender to the petitioner.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Advisor Vigilance, Railway Board, however, no action was taken. Similar complaints were filed by the petitioner with the offices of Prime Minister, Government of India, CVC, Serious Fraud Investigation Officer, CGO Complex, the Director and others, however, no action was taken against respondent no.2.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 271/2017 titled as ‘Satish Mandaokar v. Union of India & Ors.’ and the same was disposed of vide order dated 13th January, 2017 holding that the writ petition is premature. The relevant extract from the said order is set out below: “A perusal of the file reveals that petitioner’s complaints are under investigation. Since the petitioner's first complaint is dated 25th May, 2016 and the last complaint is dated 16th December, 2016, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is premature. Accordingly, the same is disposed of.”

8. The petitioner then filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 5178/2019 and the same was converted into Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’). The PIL was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3rd July,

2019. Relevant observations made by the Court are set out below: “ … Looking to the nature of the allegations against respondent No.2 by this petitioner, this is not a public interest litigation at all. It appears this writ petition has been preferred because of personal vengeance. Vigilance clearance was duly given to the respondent No.2 by the respondent No. I at the relevant time and the respondent No.2 has successfully completed his tenure as a Member (Traction) with the respondent No.1. In view of these facts, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition as a public interest litigation. In fact, a statement was made by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that this matter may be treated as a PIL. Finding no reason to entertain the grievance of the petitioner for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition along with pending application stands dismissed.”

9. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Review Petition and the same was disposed of vide order dated 2nd September, 2019 with liberty granted to the petitioner to prefer fresh proceedings before appropriate forum with proper averments, allegation and annexures.

10. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

11. Taking note of the prayers made in the petition, vide order dated 22nd October, 2024, respondents no.1, 3, 4 and 6 were directed to file affidavits as to whether any complaints are pending with them against respondent no.2, along with the status of the complaints. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid order are set out below:-

12. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no.3/CBI on 3rd September, 2025 wherein the CBI has stated that there were a total of six (6) complaints against respondent no.2 received by the CBI, ACB, New Delhi Branch. The said complaints were duly examined and disposed of by CBI, ACB, New Delhi Branch and therefore, no complaint of the petitioner against respondent no.2 is pending with the CBI. The relevant extracts from the said affidavit are set out below:-