Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3667 (ALL)

Jai Maa Sharda Enterprises v. State of U. P.

2016-11-09

DILIP B.BHOSALE, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Daya Shankar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Archana Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, seeks the following reliefs: "(i) issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned Tender Notice No.2/Sin.Ni.Man.M./2016-17 sent for publication by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 21.09.2016 and (Annexure No.2 to this writ petition) and all consequential proceedings in pursuant the same. (ii) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect impugned Tender Notice No.2/Sin.Ni.Man.M./2016- 17 sent for publication by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 21.09.2016." Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited our attention to the tender notification published by the third respondent, vide letter dated 21.9.2016, wherein condition no.8 has been inserted, which states that a class 'A' contractor was required to have completed contract work of a minimum of Rs.2 crores in the last three preceding years successfully under an agreement with the Irrigation Department. In view of this condition, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner could not participate in the tender process. He further submits that such a condition was incorporated in the tender document only to exclude small contractors, like the petitioner and to favour a "particular contractor". Except the allegations, as aforementioned, the petitioner has not given any particulars. Moreover, such a contractor has not been added as a party. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was aware of such a condition on 21.9.2016 itself. The last date for submitting tenders was 21.10.2016. The department seems to have finalized the tender and issued work order, though it is not clear whether an agreement with the successful bidder has been executed. The writ petition was filed on 5.11.2016, though the petitioner was aware about such a condition, which was inconvenient to him, on 21.9.2016 itself. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.