GAYA PRASAD UPADHAYAY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the order dated 8-10-1999 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, awarding contract of collection of toll over Kara pantoon bridge/ferry over river Ganga in District Pratapgarh to Vinod Kumar Pandey, respondent No. 4 may be quahsed.

(2.) The main ground on which the contract awarded to respondent No. 4 has been assailed is that the same was done, without any advertisement and without inviting any tender, and on the basis of the private negotiations. The facts averred in the writ petition are not clear and are confusing. The complete facts have been given in the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit sworn by Vinod Kumar Singhal, Assistant Engineer. Construction Division, Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as the PWD). Pratapgarh, which have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. Since these are the only affidavits filed on behalf of the State agencies, namely, respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and no facts to the contrary have been stated in the counter-affidavit filed by Vinod Kumar Pandey, respondent No. 4. We will decide the writ petition on the basis of the facts stated therein.

(3.) The PWD makes arrangement for a pantoon bridge/ferry over river Ganga at Kara Ghat in District Pratapgarh. The right to realise toll over the said bridge/ferry is let out in accordance with the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (in short, the Act). An advertisement was published on 2-8-1997 inviting tenders for realisation of toll over the aforesaid pantoon bridge/ferry for a period of three years. In pursuance to the advertisement 5 tenders were submitted. However, 4 tenders were not found to be in . The tender submitted by Sri Sarvesh Kumar Misra alone was found to be in order and the Executive Engineer, PWD, Pratapgarh, forwarded the papers to the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, for his sanction. The Commissioner vide his order dated 4-11-1997 held that as there was only one tender, it would not be proper to award the contract on its basis. He accordingly directed that fresh tenders be invited. This order was challenged by Sarvesh Kumar Misra by filing C.M. Writ Petition No. 688 of 1998 in which the State was directed to file counter-affidavit. On the application for grant of interim relief it was directed that any step taken by the respondents in pursuance to the order of the Commissioner dated 4-11-1997 will be subject to the result of the writ petition. In pursuance to the order of the Commissioner, fresh advertisement was issued in three newspapers inviting tenders up to 3 pm. on 13-1-1998, which were to be opened at 3.30 pm. in presence of the tenders. This time also there was only one valid tender which was submitted by Vinod Kumar Pandey, respondent No. 4, and he had made an offer of Rs. 7 lakhs per year (Rs. 21,00,000/- for three years). It is averred in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit that the papers were not forwarded to the Commissioner as there was only one tender and the amount offered by him was less than the amount of Rs. 7.5 lakhs offered in earner advertisement. Subsquently, respondent No. 4 enhanced his offer to Rs. 8 lakhs and then the Executive Engineer vide his letter dated 31-5-1999 forwarded the papers with his recommendation to the Commissioner, and the same was accepted by him by his order7 dated 5-10-1999 and the contract was awarded to respondent No. 4.