N.P. Tiwari and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, Judge

The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the tender notice dated 18th of May, 2012 issued by the respondent/Collector/Secretary E-Governance Society District, Katni inviting applications for establishing Lok Seva Kendra at various places in Katni District under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee, Adhiniyam, 2010 (for short "the Adhiniyam"). The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the State Government had entered into an agreement in the year 2009 with the Reliance Communication Ltd. for the purposes of providing speedy and efficient service to the users and to make it convenient for citizens and other stakeholders to interact with the Government and do business using the Internet services and for these purposes the Reliance Communication Ltd. was to set up Common Services Centers which were to be run and operated by Village Level Entrepreneurs. As per the agreement with the Reliance Company the infrastructure for setting up these Common Service Centers was to be provided by the State Government while Tele Communication and Internet facilities were to be provided by the Reliance Communication Ltd.

It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the petitioners were selected as Village Level Entrepreneurs and after entering into the agreement with the Collector, Katni they were permitted to establish their Common Service Centers in Katni. It is submitted that for the purposes of establishing the Common Service Centers, they have obtained loan from various financial institutions and installed computers, printers and other electronic equipments in the centers and are running the same in accordance with law. However, the respondents/authorities by the impugned tender notice, now seek to set up (Lok Seva Kendra) Public Service Centers at various places at Katni District which would adversely affect the petitioner''s business and in view of the aforesaid allegations the impugned notice has been challenged by the petitioners in the present petition.

The respondent/State has filed a return and stated that subsequent to the agreement entered into by the State with the Reliance Communication Ltd., the State enacted the Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee, Adhiniyam, 2010 under which the State Government is required to set up Lok Seva Kendra at various places in the State with an object of implementing the Act which provides for giving speedy public service to the citizens and quick disposal of the matters pending before various authorities. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid provisions of the 2010 Adhiniyam, the State Government is setting up such public service centers throughout the State and pursuant thereto, the Collector, Katni has issued the impugned tender notice inviting applications for setting up Public Service Centers (Lok Seva Kendra) in as many as in seven places in the District of Katni.

The respondents in para 11 of the return have clearly stated that the work which was required to be carried out by the Reliance Communication Ltd. as per agreement with the State and which is being performed by the petitioners as Village Level Entrepreneurs through their Common Service Centers is different from the work that would be performed by the Lok Seva Kendra which are being set up by the State Government by the impugned tender notice. In the said paragraph the State has clearly stated that the petitioners would be free to run their VLE Centers i.e. the Common Service Centers in the places in which they were permitted to run these centers and that the same are not being closed by the State Government.

In view of the aforesaid statement of the respondents in paragraph 11 of the return, I am of the considered opinion that no interference in the impugned tender notice issued by the respondents is called for as the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioners would be free to run their VLE Centers i.e. the Common Service Centers at the place where they were permitted to run these centers and that the same are not being closed by the State Government. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of by recording the statements of the respondents made in their return. Needless to say that the interim order granted by this Court stands vacated on the disposal of the petition.