Rajpal Singh Chauhan And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ

The present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of two tenders of even date 07.09.2024, whereby bids were invited by Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam for renovation and upgradation work at Government Ayurvedic Hospital Chillar, Chakrata, Dehradun at an estimated cost of work of Rs. 44 Lacs and renovation and upgradation work at Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Nagthat, Kalsi, Dehradun at an estimated cost of Rs. 36.24 Lacs and also for quashing of the Letter of Acceptance dated 14.10.2024 given in favour of respondent Nos. 6 & 7 and another Work Order dated 18.10.2024 also in favour of the same respondents.

On 03.01.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench passed the following order:-

“Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Sunil Khaira, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent nos.1 & 5.

Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4.

Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam invited bids for two different civil works. According to petitioners, for the first work, as many as 35 bidders submitted online bid, while in respect of second work, 33 bidders submitted online bids. However, out of those 35/33 bidders, only 3/4 persons were considered for award of contract and the bids submitted by other bidders were cancelled on the ground that offline bids were not submitted by them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to Tender Summary Reports, which are enclosed as annexure-10 & 11 to the writ petition.

Perusal of those reports reveals that bids submitted by majority of bidders got rejected only on the ground that physical documents were not submitted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners went to submit offline bids along with all necessary documents, however, they were prevented from submitting offline bids/documents by few persons who were sitting outside the office of respondent no.3. He refers to the complaints made to Project Manager on 08.10.2024, which is on record, as annexure-7 to the writ petition.

Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that officers of Uttarakhand Peyjal Nigam have defrauded public exchequer in collusion with certain contractors.

Let counsel for Uttarakhand Peyjal Nigam get necessary instructions in the matter by 06.01.2025.

Put up on 08.01.2025 as fresh.

Till the next date of listing, it is directed that further proceedings pursuant to the work order issued by Uttarakhand Peyjal Nigam shall remain stayed.”

Thereafter, a withdrawal application was filed by the petitioners stating that they have entered into a compromise with the private respondents. The withdrawal application was rejected by this Court by order dated 18.02.2025, which is as follows:-

“Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Withdrawal application is preferred by the petitioners. In Paragraph No.3 of the application, it is deposed that the petitioners and respondents have settled their dispute outside the Court and they have entered into compromise, implying thereby, some gain having been accrued to the petitioners.

The institution of the Court cannot be used as platform to arm-twist and to extract gratification.

This Court by order dated 03.01.2025 passed the interim order after recording that the Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam in collusion with certain contractors has defrauded the public exchequer.

In that view, we reject the withdrawal application with costs of Rs.1.00 Lakh to be deposited into the account of the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, within ten days, failing which, the Registrar General shall initiate appropriate action for recovery of the same, including contempt. Respondent no.1 shall produce the record.

List this matter on 10.03.2025.”

Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, states that the petitioners have deposited cost of Rs.1 Lac as directed by the previous order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is present, but he has not advanced any argument in support of the grounds taken in the writ petition.

As the petitioners have already been directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 1 Lac for having abused the process of this Court and which amount has already been deposited, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in absence of any person to press the grounds raised in the writ petition, it would be a futile exercise to proceed with the matter.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

The interim order dated 03.01.2025 shall stand vacated.

Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.