Gulam vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Sushil Vashist, the learned Brief Holder for Respondent No. 1 and Sri L.P. Naithani, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri D. Barthwal, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

The Petitioner is a prospective contractor interested in supplying articles to Dargah Sabir Pak, Piran Kaliyar Sharif Roorkee, Haridwar. It transpires that an advertisement was published on 20th March, 2011 inviting tenders for supply of certain items. The last date for the submission and opening of the tender was 28th March, 2011, but, one day prior to it, the committee postponed the opening of the tenders. Subsequently, a meeting was held on 13th April, 2011 and it was resolved that a new committee would be formed comprising of several persons for settling the tender. Based on that, a tender notice has again been issued on 2nd May, 2011 inviting applications for the supply of various items in the Dargah. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the said advertisement, has filed the present writ petition.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is, that the first tender dated 20th March, 2011, has not as yet been cancelled and without cancelling the first tender, the second tender could not have been issued. It has further been contended that actually the second advertisement dated 2nd May, 2011 issued by the committee was not in consonance with the resolution of the Board dated 13th April, 2011 and lastly, it was contended that in the earlier tender, the contractors were required to give a bank draft towards the earnest money, but, now in the second tender, the contractors could furnish the earnest money through a crossed cheque also. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that this has been done deliberately in order to favour their own men.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any illegality in the issuance of the second tender notice dated 2nd May, 2011. Once the tender notice dated 20th March, 2011 was postponed and a new committee was found in which a resolution was passed to hold a fresh tender, it becomes clear that the first tender is cancelled automatically. Insofar as the submission of the earnest money through a crossed cheque or a bank draft is concerned, that does not indicate any illegality. It is the part of the tender process and it is upon the Board to vary the terms and conditions of the tender which is upon their subjective satisfaction. Insofar as the members of the committee are concerned, the resolution clearly indicated that the tender process will be carried out by certain persons and eventually, the same was carried out by some of the persons, which is substantial compliance and does not mean that other members of the Board have been unnecessarily ousted.

In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.