MAHESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for granting relief in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner till fresh contract is made in accordance with law. It has been further prayed that the agreement entered into between the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 (or 3 ?), after taking it on record from the respondents, may be quashed.

(2.) AGAINST the reliefs sought by the petitioner, we have seen the factual background of the case. We find that the petitioner's contention is that there was an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 for the purpose of carrying out work in the nature of maintenance, repairs, annual washing and painting etc. in between 3. 4. 2006 to 31. 3. 2007 or till fresh tender is called and decided finally. According to the petitioner, later part of the agreement being "or till fresh tender is called and decided finally" gives right to the petitioner to continue with the work since no proper advertisement inviting tender had been made by the authority before entering into contract with respondent No. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has shown a newspaper to establish that it does not contain any publication of notice inviting tender.

(3.) WE have called upon the learned Standing Counsel and also learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, to whom the work has been entrusted, to take appropriate instruction and make their respective submissions before this Court in this respect. Both, the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for private respondent, being respondent No. 3, had been directed to file copies of the newspapers of the date separately on the next date of hearing.