A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) UDAI Kumar Verma, the petitioner before us, has filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs: " (a) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities especially the Respondent kno. 2 to act fairly and consider the tender auction after giving tender notice in two well known widely circulated news-papers, (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Chief Medical officer, Varanasi Respondent No. 2 to provide the tender form to the petitioner before finalizing the tender/auction in question. (c) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; (d) to award costs of this writ; petition to the petitioner against the contesting respondents. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that tenders are being floated by the respondents-Authorities,in breach of earlier a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 11059 of 1999 (Santosh Kumar v. The Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi and Anr.) (Copy filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition), which reads: "heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of direction of this Court the respondents has not advertised the auction in well known newspapers having wide circulation and they had only published in the newspaper dainik Jagran dated 14. 2. 99. The respondents are directed to advertise the tender notice in at least two newspaper having wide circulation namely one aaj and another in dainik Jagran only then the tender should be invited in accordance with law. Petition is finally disposed of. " ( 3 ) PETITIONER contends that tender notices (for executing certain work ))were not published in news papers having wide circulation in the State, namely dainik Jagran and aaj; in stead the same were published in local news papers (which do not have wide circulation) e. g. janvarta,and swatantra Moreha. ( 4 ) WRIT petition was filed in the year 2002 after notice to the respondents through Chief Standing counsel in November 2002. No counter affidavit was filed despite time granted by the Court vide order dated 16. 11. 2002. ( 4 ) WRIT petition was filed in the year 2002 after notice to the respondents through Chief Standing counsel in November 2002. No counter affidavit was filed despite time granted by the Court vide order dated 16. 11. 2002. Respondents-authorities did not take up the matter seriously as they failed to file counter affidavit. ( 5 ) THIS Court passed an order on 4. 3. 2005, which is self-explanatory. For ready reference it is reproduced below: "admit, issue notice. All the respondents are represented by Standing counsel who was granted time under Court order dated 16. 11. 2002 to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. A supplementary affidavit was also filed alter serving its copy in the office of Chief Standing counsel on 29. 11. 2004. There is no supplementary counter affidavit to the said supplementary affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel however, prays for further time to file counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. As a last opportunity, we grant six weeks and no more to file counter affidavit subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- as cost which may be paid before the next date fixed. Rejoinder affidavit/supplementary Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three weeks of the receipt of the counter/supplementary counter affidavit, if any. Stay application shall be listed immediately on expiry of ten weeks. In the facts of the present case we propose to pass an interim order. According to the petitioner, respondent authorities (particularly respondent No. 2) has been abusing his office and powers by not inviting tenders by publication in two newspapers having wide circulation namely aaj and dainik Jagran as directed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 19. 3. 1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11059 of 1999 (Santosh Kumar v. The Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi and Anr.); copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition. For ready reference aforesaid order is reproduced below: "heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of direction of this Court the respondents has not advertised the auction in well known newspapers having wide circulation and they had only published in the newspaper dainik Jagran dated 14. 2. 99. For ready reference aforesaid order is reproduced below: "heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of direction of this Court the respondents has not advertised the auction in well known newspapers having wide circulation and they had only published in the newspaper dainik Jagran dated 14. 2. 99. The respondents are directed to advertise the tender notice in at least two newspaper having wide circulation namely one aaj and another in dainik Jagran only then the tender should be invited in accordance with law. " Perusal of the letter of The Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi, addressed to the Director information and Public Relation, U. P. dated 26. 2. 2002 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) shows that request was made to publish tender notice in janvarta and swatantra kmorcha, local daily newspapers. The said request made by respondent No. 2 is in breach of the directions given by the Court as noted above. Apart from the above, petitioner pleads vide Supplementary affidavit that several letters were written to respondent No. 2 to inform him as to when tender notice published and on what date but the same has been withheld. On the contrary, we find that agreement executed way back in the year 2000-2001 and onward has been extended on the ground that tender could not be finalized for publication. It appears that an attempt is being made to circumvent the directions of this Court as well as some of the Government Orders (reference may be made to the orders dated 11. 2. 1999, 5. 3. 2002, 4. 1. 2003) all filed collectively as Annexure 4 to the Supplementary affidavit. Annexure 7 to the Supplementary Affidavit shows that contract with reference to certain firms (who were given contract on the basis of the tenders published two or three years back) has been extended by means of the order of Chief Medical Officer dated 16. 11. 2004. Record, particularly petitioners letter dated 11. 6. 2004 (part of Annexure 3 to the Supplementary affidavit) shows that tenders are invited for twelve months from the period 1st April to 31 March of following year. In view of the above, it is provided that respondent will not extend period of contract which will come to an end on 31. 3. 2005. 6. 2004 (part of Annexure 3 to the Supplementary affidavit) shows that tenders are invited for twelve months from the period 1st April to 31 March of following year. In view of the above, it is provided that respondent will not extend period of contract which will come to an end on 31. 3. 2005. Further respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to advertise the tender notice in at least two daily newspapers having wide circulation (as earlier directed by this Court inaaj and dainik Jagran ). It is open to the respondents to advertise in any other newspapers; in addition to above two newspapers, if they so like. Process must be started within three days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order for which we direct the Learned Standing Counsel to communicate within three days from today. Apart from the above, we further issue an interim mandamus to the present incumbent of the office of Respondent no, 2 as well as the Director General Medical Health / respondent No. l to file their separate Counter affidavit (giving parawise reply) duly sworn by the said officers personally after making due inquiry and on the basis of the record before them within the time stipulated above. Respondent No. 2 shall be present before this Court on the next date fixed to explain as to why counter affidavit was not filed earlier even though couple of years have elapsed and further as to why Division Bench direction to publish tender notice in particular two newspapers has not been complied with. List on 13. 5. 2005. " ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY this Court passed order dated 27th May, 2005, which reads: "sri V. P. N. Singh, present incumbent on the post of Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi is present and identified by Sri Veer Singh. Advocate. Learned counsel points out that in spite of Courts clear order for filing counter affidavit personally the Chief Medical Officer has not filed any counter affidavit. The Court takes serious view of the same. History of the case shows that respondent-authorities are taking the matter lightly. This court would like to make it clear that this would not be tolerated. Partawise counter affidavit may now be filed within three days from today or Chief Medical Officer should be prepared for facing contempt proceedings. Meanwhile, we restrain the respondents from granting contract in question reg. History of the case shows that respondent-authorities are taking the matter lightly. This court would like to make it clear that this would not be tolerated. Partawise counter affidavit may now be filed within three days from today or Chief Medical Officer should be prepared for facing contempt proceedings. Meanwhile, we restrain the respondents from granting contract in question reg. Repair of building and supply etc. to Government hospitals and no payment shall be made to any of the contractor till the next date of listing, if need be this Court may direct for high power enquiry in the past contracts as well. List this case on 12th July 2005. " ( 7 ) IT may be noted that Court order was not initially complied inasmuch as the then Chief medical Officer, Varanasi in as much as the counter-affidavit filed on his behalf (C. M. O. Varanasi) was sworn by the then Deputy Chief Medical Officer /dr. M. N. Misra. In our opinion, public money and court time were put to reckless wastage. Court expects the public servants (concerned officers) and the Standing Counsel (who drafted the counter affidavit) to be careful, in future and take care in particular that they do not act in breach of Court direction. Apology (oral) tendered by Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on behalf of the officers and the concerned standing counsel, is accepted, with direction to advise the concerned to be more vigilant future. ( 8 ) COMING to the merit of the case, we find, several affidavits, supplementary affidavits, counter affidavits/supplementary counter affidavits and applications filed before this Court bringing on record various tender notices issued from time to time during pendency of writ petition. ( 9 ) RECORD of the case shows that on 12th June 2005 a short-term tender notice was issued in violation of the order of the Court (by not issuing the same in newspapers having wide circulation in the,state ). However, the document brought on record on behalf of respondents shows that the mistake was detected and the said short-term tender notice has been cancelled.-This again shows casual approach and pathetic functioning of the respondents-authorities. We find no good reason for issuing tender notice in violation of the court order and wasting public money. However, the document brought on record on behalf of respondents shows that the mistake was detected and the said short-term tender notice has been cancelled.-This again shows casual approach and pathetic functioning of the respondents-authorities. We find no good reason for issuing tender notice in violation of the court order and wasting public money. Alleged mistake, on the other hand, in the background of the instant case, does not provide opportunity to the petitioner to seriously challenge the extraneous motive and malafidy on the part of the respondent. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties are, however, agreed that only question that remains at present is with regard to the tender notice relating to the year 2005, published in daily news papers dainik Jagran and aaj dated March 20, 2005, ( photo copies of the said tender notice has been filed as Annexure C. A. 5 and C. A. 6 to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 2 sworn by vijai Pratap Narain Singh, the then Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi filed along with Urgency application / Stay Vacation Application No. 124687 of 2005) The aforesaid advertisements show that in the column estimated value of the work required to be carried out under the said tender has not been specified and instead it mentions as per availability of budget. Such description is vague and does not satisfy the title of the column. Unless the estimated value of the work in question is not ascertained /mentioned in the tender notice - eligible Contractors will not be able to respond. We also find that in all other tender notices specific amount has been shown in that column. This deviation in the relevant tender notice dated 20th March, 2005 is significant in view of the contention raised by the petitioner that estimated cost of work in the said tender notice was deliberately concealed in order to bring the said work to be executed by a contractor in Category c and exclude the petitioner (who was then Contractor of d category ). Letter of the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. addressed to the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi, has been brought on the record by way of Annexure "ra 1" to the Supplementary Rejoinder affidavit of Uday Kumar Vderma to show: category of the Contractor Amount in lacs category a Unlimited category b 50. 00 Lacs category c 25. 00 Lacs category d 10. 00 Lacs category c 25. 00 Lacs category d 10. 00 Lacs ( 11 ) WE do not intend to enter into this controversy inasmuch as learned counsel for the petitioner stated before us that petitioner is also now registered as b category Contractor. ( 12 ) WE do not intend to enter into the factual controversy regarding malafide raised in this writ petition. The then Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi has already retired. New incumbent has taken charge. Also for the reason that Sri S. A. Kazmi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel has fairly conceded that work contracts by the State should be published in news papers having wide circulation in the State in order to give wide publicity to enable ail eligible Contractors to come forward so that there is be real competition and object of issuing notice is achieved in real sense. ( 13 ) IN view of the above, we find that the tender notice dated 20th March 2005, referred to above, given in dainik Jagran and aaj were not in order since the estimated cost of the work had not been disclosed and hence sucn tender notices are declared bad, in effective and quashed. We also direct the respondents to give fresh tender notice in at least two news papers having wide circulation in the State, namely daink Jagran and aaj giving all requisite particulars in sufficient details and in an intelligible manner, giving value of the work to be carried out, the category of Contractors entitled to participate, last date other particulars/formalities etc. Apart from the above two news papers, it is open to the respondents-authorities to give wide publicity to the tender notices in any other mode, including to advertise in local news papers also in accordance with relevant Rules, Government orders. ( 14 ) IN addition to above, we permit the petitioner to file representation/complaint, if so advised, before the Director of Medical and Health with regard to any other contract, which has been given in violation of financial rules or Government order with effect from March, 2005 to July, 2005. ( 15 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds in part and is allowed to the extent indicated above. ( 16 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. . .