SIKANDAR ALI Vs. NAGAR NIGAM JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of judgment and order dt. 4. 2. 1999 of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 586/99 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed in limine.

(2.) THE appellants are the contractors and they had been given contract by Nagar Nigam Jaipur, respondent No. 1 for removal of garbage from the garbage collection points of Nagar Nigam Jaipur on the basis of tenders invited from general public by way of publication in various newspapers for the year 1996-97. In response to the said advertisement, the appellants had submitted their tenders as per terms & conditions of the tender notice and after due scrutiny of their tenders, they were given contract for removal of garbage and transportation. THE work contract for the year 1996-97 was extended for the next year i. e. 1997-98 (vide Annexure-3) to the writ petition and again for the year 1998-99 (vide Annexure-4) to the writ petition with 10% increase of rates.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended at the bar that keeping in view the (a) past good performance of the appellants as contractor; (b) that their work order for removal of garbage was extended twice i. e. for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99, Annexure 3 & 4, respectively; (c) that the Chairman of the Committee (Health Sanitation) had very strongly recommended the case of the appellants for extension of work contract to the Director Local Bodies, respondent No. 3 and to Mayor, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, respondent No. 4, the appellants were entitled to be given the work contract for the year 1999-2000 as well. Mrs. Naina Saraf further contended that appellants had already purchased the equipment for better and speedy work for which they had incurred loan on the basis of the recommendations of the Chairman of the Committee and they were conveyed assurance by the then Mayor of Jaipur Nagar Nigam that their work contract will be extended for successive three years. The said recommendations are said to have been approved by the Zonal Commissioner of Jaipur Nagar Nigam and thereafter the matter was referred to Mayor, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. It is alleged that Mayor of the Nigam had advised the appellants that if they want to participate in the tender they will have to deposit draft of Rs. 2,58,000/-but, inspite of several representations made by the appellants to the respondents individually, no action was taken in the matter nor any payment has been made to them. Finally, the appellants made a representation to the State Government on 29. 12. 1998 but that too was not given any effect. Hence, being aggrieved of the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents, the appellants (petitioners) had preferred writ petition before this Court which was dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4. 2. 1999 and being aggrieved of the said order, the appellants have now come up before this Court by way of instant appeal.