Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 51 (UTT)

Raj Kaur Chaudhary v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-02-15

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2018
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Considering the nature of defects and order, which we propose to pass, having regard to the decision, which we have already passed in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018, we ignore the defects pointed out by the Registry. 2. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He approached this court for the following relief: “(a). To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the entire tender process (Phase-II) pursuant to the tender invitation dated 5.2.2018 (Annexure no. 5 to this petition). (b). To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the online-bidding process in phase-II of the e-auction regarding the two mining lots, i.e. 1.720 hectare lot at village Tallakote, Dhaniyakote, Tehsil Koshiyakutoli District Nainital and the 1.30 hectare lot at village katimi, Tehsil Betalghat, District Nainital”. 3. Case of the appellant is that State/respondent invited tender on 10.1.2018 for settling the mining rights in respect of certain places in the State of Uttarakhand. The e-tender notice contemplates two stages. Admittedly, the first stage is with regard to the screening of technical bid and financial viability of the party. In the second stage, actual bidding takes place. For the purpose of participating in the second stage as per Clause 8 of Annexure P1 of the writ petition, appellant was expected to be registered for the second stage. Case of the appellant is that appellant, after being served with the acceptance of the tender in the first stage, was waiting for being informed about the time schedule for the second stage by way of e-mail or sms. 4. It is the case of the appellant that with regard to the first stage, information was being provided by the respondent through sms or e-mail. Though for the second stage neither any SMS nor any e-mail was sent to the appellant for time schedule and by the time, he would come to know for registration in the second stage, time was already over. 5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by observing as follows: “3. According to the petitioner, there is no purpose for registration. Moreover, according to the petitioner, this condition was never brought to the notice of the petitioner and consequently, she could not register herself with the respondent authorities. 5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by observing as follows: “3. According to the petitioner, there is no purpose for registration. Moreover, according to the petitioner, this condition was never brought to the notice of the petitioner and consequently, she could not register herself with the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said document is dated 5.2.2018, however, the same was uploaded on the website of the respondent authorities on 8.2.2018. However, this argument has not been substantiated by the petitioner in any manner. 4. Assuming for the sake of argument that it was uploaded on 8.2.2018, it still gives three days’ time to the petitioner to get registered with the respondent authorities, which the petitioner has in fact failed to do and has challenged the same before this Court. 5. So far as this new condition is concerned, this Court finds no anomaly with the same. It is admittedly an auction which has to be made through e-auction and the submission of tender and the correspondence, etc has to be made electronically. The document dated 5.2.2018 on which the petitioner is relying upon categorically states that such registrations have to be made from 6.2.2018 onwards to 11.2.2.018 between 10.00 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. This condition was universally applicable to all the prospective bidders i.e. those who have qualified the technical bid. Further it cannot be said that this condition which has been imposed by the respondent authorities is arbitrary or unequal. Moreover, these are commercial matters where interference is to be made on extremely limited grounds, such as violation of due procedure, etc. Such grounds are not available to the petitioner”. 6. We heard Mr. R.S. Bisht, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 7. We notice, as noticed by learned Single Judge also that condition namely registration was universally applicable to all the prospective bidders. We cannot hold that it is unequal. We also agree that in the commercial matter where interference is possible is only on limited grounds. In fact, we would notice paragraphs 11and 12 of the writ petition, which read as follows: “11. We cannot hold that it is unequal. We also agree that in the commercial matter where interference is possible is only on limited grounds. In fact, we would notice paragraphs 11and 12 of the writ petition, which read as follows: “11. That on the next day the petitioner again tried to gain some information from the official website and was able to download the phase-II of the tender process which provides that the registration for phase-II would start from 10 am of 6.2.2018 and would close on 3pm of 11.2.2018. The copy of the invitation for phase-II of the e-tender cum e-auction dated 5.2.2018 is being filed as Annexure no. 5 to this petition. 12. That it is pertinent to state here that though that aforesaid document is dated 5.2.2018, however, the same appears to have been uploaded on 8.2.2018. It is also pertinent to state here that no information regarding the phase-II of the tender process was published in any news paper, or any SMS or any email, and the respondents have been able to clandestinely allow only a few selected bidders of their choice in the online-bidding process and have been able to illegally oust the bonafide bidders, such as the petitioner, from the tender process.” 8. In fact, in the communication dated 2.2.2018, he was informed that time schedule would be published. Appellant admits that appellant was able to download the time schedule. Case of the appellant is that because uploading of the time schedule was done only on 8.2.2018, therefore, sufficient time was not granted for registration. Even if it is uploaded on 8.2.2018, if appellant had been vigilant, he could have participated by registering himself till 11.2.2018. Therefore, in view of the fact that condition is imposed in terms and conditions of e-tender notice was already in the knowledge of the appellant and appellant has also participated in the first stage, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.