Shri Shankar Transport Co. vs Managing Director, U.P. Rajya Bhandaran Nigam and Others

M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.—The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the tender notice for grant of contract by the respondent U.P. Rajya Bhandaran Nigam of transport and handling work.

Admittedly, the petitioner had a contract only till 28.1.2003 when the period of the contract expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner''s contract has been extended till 28.1.2004.

We are of the opinion that once the period of a time-bound contract granted by a public authority has expired, there cannot be any extension of the period of the contract, but instead there must be a fresh public auction/public tender after advertisement in well-known newspaper having wide circulation in the area, otherwise there will be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a procedure ensures fairness, equality and transparency as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, If extension of time-bound contract is permitted, there can be monopoly In favour of some one who will get the contract in his favour extended again and again. This would not only be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India but also Article 19(1)(g), since ordinarily monopoly violates these constitutional provisions vide State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal Vyas, ; Rashid Ahmed Vs. The Municipal Board, Kairana, ; Hamid Raza Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ; Rashbihari Panda etc. Vs. State of Orissa,

The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, if the petitioner is eligible, he can also bid, amongst others, in the forthcoming auction.