SHABIR AHMAD Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petitioner concern was awarded contract for running the 'canteen services at Government Medical College and its Associated Hospitals' Srinagar in terms of e-tender notice No. 05 of 2016. The rate contract was approved finally on 15.06.2017 and was operative for a period of 12 months from the date of issuance of approved rate contract or till such time the new rate contract for succeeding year is finalized. As per the petitioner, the canteens which were required to be run by the petitioner were not handed over to him by the hospital authorities as a result of the same he had to suffer huge losses. The petitioner was later on handed over the possession of only three canteens though he was entitled to run eight canteens as per tender. It appears that fresh tender notice was issued in the year 2018 vide No. 36 of 2018 and the same was challenged by the petitioner herein in OWP No. 2345 of 2018 and the court directed vide interim order dated 19.12.2018 that e-tender notice shall not be finalized in the meantime.
(2.)The grievance of the petitioner is that the e-tender notice No. 72 of 2020 dated 10.07.2020, impugned in the present writ petition, cannot be issued or contract given in pursuance of the same as the petitioner was not handed over the possession of all the canteens by the department as well as the earlier contractor and consequently he could not completely run the canteen for one year term as per the contract. He cannot be deprived to run the canteen for the full period as envisaged under the contract of year 2017.
(3.)The objections to the petition have been filed wherein the respondents while admitting the basic contention of the petitioner that the contract was awarded to the petitioner to run the canteens as per e-tender Notice 05 of 2016, have further submitted that the term of the contract has already expired and the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to run the canteens for complete one year stands fulfilled as he has already run those canteens for that period of which he opted to take possession. The respondents deny that there was omission on the part of the respondents in handing over the canteens to the petitioner and further state that the petitioner was not entitled to run eight canteens as claimed by him. It is also pleaded that the petitioner did not approach the concerned authorities of Kashmir Nursing Home for possession of the canteen. The respondents have also stated in the objections the dates on which the possession of the canteens was taken over by the petitioner. No legal right of the petitioner stands violated and the petitioner is not, in any case, entitled to run the canteens beyond the period of twelve months.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.