Ram Singh Kumatia vs Nainital Dug Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited And Others

Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the work order dated 17.04.2026 issued by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 3 for collection and transportation of raw milk from Chhoi and adjoining places to milk depot at Bailparao First (Nayagaon). The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to grant contract in favour of the next lowest bidder.

The case of the petitioner is that the bid submitted by respondent No. 3 was non-responsive, inasmuch as he did not have the vehicle registered in his own name. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Condition No. 4 of the e-tender conditions, which reads as follows:-

"4. वाहन का माडल वर्श 2015 से कम नहीं होना चाहिये। पैन कार्ड, आधार कार्ड, वाहन के पंजीकरण, बीमा, परमिट के वैद्य प्रपत्रों की स्व प्रमाणित छायाप्रति तकनिकी बिड के साथ à¤...पलोड करना à¤...निवार्य है à¤...न्यथा निविदा निरस्त कर दी जायेà¤-ी। वाहन निविदादाता के नाम पंजीकृत होना चाहिये। à¤...परिहार्य परिस्थितियों में ही पावर आफ à¤...टार्नी मान्य होà¤-ी।"

It is urged that respondent No. 3 had relied on a power of attorney, but without disclosing any unavoidable circumstance for acceptance of the Power of Attorney.

Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, on basis of instructions, states that the bid of the petitioner was L-3 and, therefore, in any event, he would not get the contract. Therefore, this Court should decline to examine the challenge at the behest of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there were in all three bidders. The details thereof are as follows:

Sl.

No.

Name of the Bidders

Rate quoted

(In Rs.)

1

Neeraj Adhikari (respondent No. 3 herein) (L1)

31.85 per

kilometer

2

Inder Singh (L-2)

33.80 per

kilometer

3

Ram Singh (petitioner herein) (L-3)

34 per

kilometer

4

Kundan Singh (L-4)

40 Per

Kilometer

It is submitted that the petitioner and other two bidders are real brothers. They have formed a cartel and ar e not permitting any other person to bid, or to get the contract, since last ten years. In these circumstances, the Department had accepted the Power of Attorney submitted by respondent No. 3 as his bid was the lowest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner and other two unsuccessful bidders, apart from respondent No. 3, are real brothers. It is also not disputed before us that the bid of the petitioner was L-3, and L-2 has not come before this Court raising any challenge to the contract in question. The conditions of e-tender permit acceptance of Power of Attorney in certain circumstances. The Tender Evaluation Committee, having regard to the aforesaid relevant facts, had accepted the Power of Attorney submitted by respondent No. 3.

This Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot arrogate to itself the power of the Tender Evaluation Committee and decide whether in the given circumstances, the Power of Attorney should have been accepted or not.

In view of it, we decline to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.