Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 231 (UTT)

Basanti Dev v. State of Uttarakhand

2020-05-29

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2020
ORDER : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner is an elected Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Bageshwar, an office which she is holding since December, 2019. Prior to that she was registered as a Class "A" contractor with the Government of Uttarakhand and as such she continued to get Government contracts in her favour. 2. When asked specifically from the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri K.P. Upadhayay, he has apprised this Court, on instructions, that even after the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Bageshwar, she continued to get contracts from the State Government. 3. By the impugned order dated 15.05.2020 the registration of the petitioner as Class "A" contractor has been cancelled by the Chief Engineer Level-I, Public Works Department, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, an order which the petitioner has challenged before this Court by means of the present writ petition. 4. In the impugned order dated 15.05.2020, the Chief Engineer Level-I has referred to the provisions of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, where, inter alia, an elected Chairman of a Zila Panchayat is a public servant. 5. There is absolutely no doubt that the petitioner is a public servant. Logically therefore in her capacity as a public servant, she cannot get Government contracts in her favour. In fact, she stands disqualified to make any such bids for these contracts'. The proper course should have been that immediately after being elected as the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, the petitioner should have herself moved an application for cancellation of her registration. To the contrary, after the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled, she has instead challenged its cancellation of registration before this Court, by means of the present writ petition. 6. A public servant cannot be given Government contracts. Not only this there are also issues as to what action needs to be taken against the petitioner in case she had continued to get Government contracts even after her being elected to the office of the Chairman. 7. This Court leaves this to the Government for appropriate action in accordance with law. 8. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. 9. 7. This Court leaves this to the Government for appropriate action in accordance with law. 8. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. 9. Although initially this Court was inclined to dismiss the petition with costs, but on persistent insistence by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri K.P. Upadhayay, praying that under the present unusual circumstances at least costs may not be imposed. Consequently no order as to costs.