AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh, J
Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that petitioner is a proprietorship firm and Mr. Harish Kumar Sharma is its authorized signatory.
Petitioner firm is engaged in providing Helipad on rent and has its own Helipad at village Sersi, Mandakini Valley, Tehsil Ukhimath, District
Rudraprayag. In the month of February, 2019 notice inviting tenders for providing Helicopter Shuttle Services on select routes were invited. Last date
for submission of bids was 25.02.2019 at 01.00 hours. Vide corrigendum dated 22.02.2019, last date for submission of tender was extended till
01.03.2019 at 01.30 hours. Vide Government Order dated 09.06.2016, Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand directed the District Magistrate,
Rudraprayag and Uttarakhand Civil Aviation Department not to grant permission for construction private Helipad, as there are already 14 Helipads in
existence. This order was modified on 16.02.2019 whereby 4 additional Helipads of respondents no. 6 to 9 were included for Helicopter services only
for the season 2019. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 16.02.2019 & 22.02.2019 and for excluding the
name respondents no. 6 to 9 from bid process.
Heard Mr. Gopal K. Verma and Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General for Union of
India, Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for respondent no. 10, Mr. R.P.
Nautiyal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent nos. 6 to 9 and perused the record.
Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner submits that respondents no. 6 to 9 in connivance with State authorities have managed to enter in
the bid process. He placing reliance on Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2, submits that on the basis of report of
Incharge Revenue Inspector, private respondents managed to obtain Government Order dated 16.02.2019. While as per Annexure No.6 to the writ
petition, District Magistrate herself had directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ukhimath not to grant permission for construction of any private
Helipad and respondents no. 6 to 9 have constructed their Helipad illegally.
Per contra, Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Sr. Advocate raised a preliminary objection that present writ petition is not maintainable, as writ petition is
filed by Mr. Harish Kumar Sharma as authorized signatory while there is no power of attorney only Director has authorized the petitioner to file
present writ petition. Name of the Director of the Company is also not shown. Petitioner has not disclosed his post or capacity in the said firm.
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Sr. Advocate further submits that present bids are invited for shuttle service of helicopters and petitioner is a Helipad
owner, he has nothing to do with the tender process. Petitioner cannot curtail the rights of respondents no. 6 to 9 by way of filing writ petition and
petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned orders, as he has not participated in the tender process.
All the other counsel for the respondents adopted the arguments of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate.
In paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, petitioner has stated that petitioner has also
participated in the tender process in association with Deccan Aviation, who has applied for Narayan Dham Helipad. On page no. 73 and 76 of the writ
petition, list of 20 and 24 Helipads respectively are mentioned. In the said list, location of Narayan Dham Helipad is mentioned at Sitapur/ Sersi.
Petitioner has brought nothing on record to show that Narayan Dham Helipad is owned by petitioner firm or in what manner petitioner is connected
with Narayan Dham Helipad. Therefore, in my opinion, it can safely be said that petitioner has not participated in the tender process and has no locus
to challenge the impugned order and for excluding the names of respondents no. 6 to 9. Otherwise also, petitioner failed to establish in what capacity,
he has filed the present writ petition.
So far as argument of Mr. G. K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner is concerned that on the basis of report of Incharge Revenue Inspector,
Government Order dated 16.02.2019 is passed. For every work procedure is prescribed. The process starts from initial stage and in the system
complete chain is made one authority submits its report to the higher authority, higher authority to its higher authority and so on and thereafter, decision
is taken. Petitioner has relied only on the report of ground level authority. In my opinion, Secretary has passed the Government Order dated
16.02.2019 after applying his mind and considering all the aspects. In my opinion, by including respondent nos. 6 to 9, in the bid process, the
Government has improved the competition which will be for the benefit and convenience of public at large. So far as Annexure No. 6 to the writ
petition is concerned, it was passed by District Magistrate on 06.05.2017 before passing of order dated 16.02.2019, therefore, has no relevance.
State of Uttarkhand, in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit and respondent no. 10 / UCADA in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit have
categorically stated that petitioner is neither a prospective bidder in the entire bidding process under challenge nor in any manner, is an affected party
to the said bid document, therefore, petitioner has no locus to challenge the bid process.
Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that petitioner has participated in the tender process, even then petitioner has no right for a direction
to exclude respondents no. 6 to 9, as they are also participants in the tender process and have equal right as of petitioner. If they have constructed
Helipad illegally, the Competent Authority will look into the matter. So far as challenge to the orders 16.02.2019 and 22.02.2019 is concerned, it is not
the case of the petitioner, the Authorities concerned, who have passed these orders are not competent to pass the same.
In view of the above discussion, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court stands vacated.