RAJEEV SINGHAL Vs. UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to renew the contract of the petitioner for further two years to run the canteen of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (UTC) at Bus Station Roorkee and has further sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement/auction notice dated 9-7-2012 pertaining to UTC, Canteen Roorkee Bus Station and also the order dated 6-7-2012, whereby direction was given to the petitioner to close the canteen from 31-7-2012.
This fact is not disputed that earlier the contract was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the contract agreement as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As per clause 3 of the said agreement, the petitioner is entitled to get renewal for further two years, as has been mentioned in Rule 2 of the Contract Rules 2008. The canteen was given for an initial period of three years subject to the condition of renewal as per Contract Rules 2008. Rule 7 of the said Rules further provides that if after the expiry of the period of 3 years, there is found no complaint against the contractor and if the contractor has maintained his conduct satisfactory and that the contractor has not committed wrong, then in that case, the period of contract can be extended for a further period of two years on enhancement of 25% of the value of the earlier contract provided that the application therefor must be given by the contractor three months prior to the expiry of the existing contract period. Such a sanction shall be given by a committee headed by General Manager (Passenger Facility).
According to the petitioner, in the case at hand, the petitioner had applied for renewal on 4-4-2012 and had also moved the application, which was received in the Office of Regional Manager and also filed a certificate to the effect that he conducted the canteen work successfully. Copies of those documents have been annexed as Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 to the petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per clause 2 of the Contract Rules 2008, the advertisement has to be in two newspapers and the same shall also be pasted on the notice board 15 days prior to the auction date. In the case at hand, the advertisement published on 9-7-2012 is for auction sale on 17th July, 2012. The petitioner has annexed newspaper cutting as Annexure-7.
From the above facts and circumstances, prima facie it appears that compliance of Clause 2 of Contract Rules has not been made, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interim relief.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.