MULKI RAJ SAINI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondent no.2.

(2.) THE Zila Panchayat, Haridwar respondent no.2 issued a tender notification dated 28.07.2012 inviting applications from the candidates for collection of licence fees from the shops, horsecart, rickshaw in the rural area for the year 2012 -13. The petitioner applied in the said auction and it is admitted case that out of 5 candidates, the petitioner was the highest bidder @ Rs.9.60 lakhs. When the contract was not executed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner constrained to file the present writ petition.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit, the respondent no.2 Zila Panchayat, Haridwar states that there was a specific condition in the tender notification that the highest bidder had to deposit 50% of the bid amount at the time of auction and since the petitioner failed to deposit 50% of the bid amount at the time of bid, the contract could not be executed in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner though relied upon the office noting dated 30.03.2012 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition). A perusal of office noting dated 30.03.2012 clearly reveals that out of 5 candidates, the petitioner was the successor bidder and the matter was sent to the Chairman/ Additional Mukhya Adhikari for its approval. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to deposit the same and the reasons assigned by the petitioner is that the Committee has not approved the proposal and he could have only deposited 50% of the bid amount, if the successor bidder is approved by the Chairman of Zila Panchayat. An attention has been drawn to certain conditions mentioned in the tender notification, which gives power to the Auction Committee to relax any conditions. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Committee had got power to relax the conditions regarding deposition of 50% of the bid amount at the time of the bid and that the petitioner was under an impression that the condition to deposit 50% of bid amount would be relaxed after getting approval from the Chairman, Zila Panchayat. This contention of the petitioner though cannot be accepted as the tender notification clearly stipulates that the successor bidder had to deposit 50% of bid amount at the time of the bid. However, definitely there is a laxity on the part of the respondent authority in as much as the approval of Chairman has not come as yet pursuant to the office noting dated 30.03.2012. However, there was no proposal for relaxing conditions mentioned in the tender notification and therefore, no interim relief can be granted. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, however, it is directed that the security deposited by the petitioner i.e. Rs.50,000/ - shall be released to the petitioner forthwith within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.