KEWAL KRISHAN VIDYANATH Vs. MINISTER INCHARGE LOCAL BODIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Messrs, Kewal Krishen Vidya Nath of Rajouri for the writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ quashing the order passed in favour of respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 1 and refraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from giving effect to that order.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this petition briefly stated are these. The petitioners carry on business as a firm having its partners Kewal Krishen and Vidya Nath. The Town Area Committee of Rajori auctioned the contract for the collection of Dharat at Rajori on 27 -3 -1958 and the petitioners along with others bid at the same which was knocked down in favour of respondent. No. 3 for Rs. 35,604. The petitioners approached the Director of Local Bodies offering 5 percent., more than the bid of respondent No. 3 whereupon it was ordered that the auction should take place anew and the bid reopened. In pursuance of the above directive the bidding was reopened on 1 -4 -1958 and in open auction the petitioners bid for the same and respondent No. 2 accepted the bid of the petitioners for Rs. 40,000/ - and asked the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,000 as security which the petitioners did. Respondent No. 2 submitted the papers for sanction of the contract to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 on 24 -4 -1958 by his letter No. 55 -TJ/54 to respondent No. 2 directed that the contract should be given to respondent No. 3 as the petitioners were indebted to the Town Area Committee Rajouri and the outstanding be recovered from them. The petitioners were not given any notice to show that they were indebted and the order passed by respondent No. 1 clearly violated the rules and was contrary to the canons of natural justice. It was further alleged that in the auction of 1 -4 -1958 the next lower bid for the contract was offered by one Hem Raj son of Chuni Lal for Rs. 39,999. If the petitioners were defaulters the bid ought to have been closed in favour of Hem Raj and not in favour of respondent No. 3.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 has put in his objections and it has been averred by him that he was the highest bidder when the contract was auctioned on 27 -3 -1958 and the Minister incharge was bound to recognise that auction and the order of the Director, Local Bodies was illegal as he had not called upon respondent No. 3 to show cause why the reauction should not be ordered.