Satish Chandra Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court challenging the tender process adopted at the hands of the respondent authorities, where

his primary contention is that for the same road, Stage-I work was earlier being done by the Public Works Department in which he was admittedly L-

1, but instead of giving the work to the petitioner, the entire project has been taken away from the Public Works Department and is now being done by

the “Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna (for short, PMGSY) and now for both Stage-I and Stage-II are to be done together. In order not to stall

the construction of the road, this Court vide its order dated 15.11.2019 granted liberty to the petitioner as well to participate in the bid process, without

any prejudice to his rights in the present writ petition. The petitioner has participated in this process and has not been declared L-1, instead L-1 is

respondent no. 7 i.e. M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari.

This Court has heard on various dates Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.R. Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State,

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the PMGSY, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the private respondent, including Mr. M.M. Pandey,

learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent who is one of the villagers for whose benefit the road is being constructed.

Initially before this Court, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3693 of 2018 was filed at the hands of private respondent no. 7, wherein he had alleged anomaly

at the hands of the Public Works Department, which allegedly had declared the petitioner (present respondent no. 7 M/s Dalip Singh Adhikari) as non

responsive. Although initially an interim order was granted by this Court, but the writ petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 06.08.2019 and

the interim order dated 10.12.2018 was vacated.

Since in the first bid process, the present petitioner was declared as L-1, therefore in the normal course it is true, that after the dismissal of the writ

petition, the contract ought to have been given in favour of the present petitioner.

This, however, did not happen, as meanwhile the scheme itself was transferred from the State Authorities i.e. Public Works Department to a

Government of India scheme i.e. PMGSY and therefore a new advertisement was issued. The cost of the project was also higher, as now both Stage-

I and Stage-II work had to be done for a 13.30 km. road from “Kalauta to Ghatâ€, in district Almora. In this process, as already stated above, the

petitioner was given liberty to participate by this Court. The admitted position as of now is that the private respondent no. 7 has been declared as L-1

and the present petitioner is L-2.

The petitioner nevertheless contends that his case still rests on the cancellation of the earlier advertisement process and the initiation of second

process is per se illegal. The learned counsel for the PMGSY Mr. S.S. Chauhan has apprised this Court through his counter affidavit and subsequent

supplementary counter affidavit filed before this Court that although the advertisement was issued on 04.10.2019, the scheme by that time had not

come to the PMGSY.

The learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that although the scheme was transferred to PMGSY on 15.11.2019, the advertisement for both

Stage-I and Stage-II was given by PMGSY authorities on 04.10.2019 i.e. much before, and therefore the petitioner alleges mala fide.

This, however, does not appear to be correct as through the supplementary affidavit, which has been filed by the PMGSY, it is clear that there are

earlier orders dated 6.03.2019 and 01.07.2019 whereby the work of Stage-I and Stage-II, respectively, was sanctioned in favour of the PMGSY.

Moreover, in case any village is having a population of more than 250, all such schemes have been transferred to PMGSY. Therefore there does not

seem to be any anomaly as far as transfer of the scheme is concerned in the present bid process.

In any case, the employer is always at liberty to cancel the bid process. No contract has been executed so far till then in favour of the petitioner. All

that has happened so far is that PMGSY had given an advertisement, consequent to which an offer has been made by the petitioner. This offer has

not been accepted as yet and therefore there is no valid contract. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 were always at liberty to cancel the contract if they had any

valid reason. Presently the reason seems to be valid. Moreover, the public road is being constructed for the benefit of the villagers, who are also

before this Court and have expressed their hardship.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim orders dated

15.11.2019 and 12.02.2020 are hereby vacated.