Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2836 (ALL)

Mahendra Pal v. State of U. P.

2012-12-06

HET SINGH YADAV, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2012
1. We have heard Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Prashant Pandey, Advocate holding brief for Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for quashing the tender notice dated 6.9.2012 in regard to grant of franchisee. 3. It appears that franchisee had been granted in favour of the petitioner by the communication dated 15.4.2008. As per the terms of the contract of franchisee, the initial period of the contract was six months, which could be extended with the mutual consent of both the sides from time to time for six months each. 4. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the period of the franchisee was extended from time to time and was lastly extended by the communication dated 31.12.2011 for the period up to 31st July, 2012. It appears that instead of extending the period of franchisee of the petitioner, the concerned respondents have issued tender notice dated 6.9.2012 inviting tenders for entering into fresh contract of franchisee. 5. Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner submitted his tender pursuant to the said tender notice. However, the contract of franchisee has now been granted in favour of Ravi Prakash Mishra on 20th November, 2012. 6. It is, thus, evident that pursuant to the tender notice, which is being impugned in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner participated in the tender proceedings and submitted his tender. 7. Now, the contract of franchisee has been granted in favour of the aforesaid Ravi Prakash Mishra. 8. The petitioner has thus taken part in the tender proceedings pursuant to the tender notice dated 6.9.2012, and is impugning the same tender notice in the present Writ Petition. 9. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case. 10. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed.