- (1.) We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
(2.) This Court vide order dated 22.02.2013 in Writ Petition No.1403 (MB) of 2013 filed by the petitioner herein passed the following order: "We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this Writ Petition are that the Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Department, Faizabad Circle, Faizabad, respondent no.6, issued e-procurement notice under Pradhanmantri Gramin Sadak Yojna (hereinafter referred to as the 'PMGSY') on 5.12.2012 for construction of roads in District Barabanki through e-tendering process. The e-procurement notice has been published in various newspapers. From the e-procurement notice dated 5.12.2012 it would be evident that bid documents had to be loaded and submitted online between 18.12.2012 to 18.01.2013. The respondents on 29.12.2012 issued a corrigendum of e-procurement notice and certain amendments were circulated through newspapers. Then the place of opening of tenders was changed and the corrigendum issued by the respondents has also been circulated. The petitioners who are the registered contractors, submitted their tenders through e-tender process and also submitted their originals as per requirement of clause 4(c) and e-procurement notice dated 5.12.2012. Petitioner no.1 submitted its tender for package Nos.13117, 13137 & 13109. The petitioner no.2 submitted its tender for package No.13113, 13116, 13122 and 13124 and petitioner no.3 has submitted its tender for package Nos.13121 and 13127. The petitioners have completed all the formalities and submitted their original documents as required, and as per the schedule, the evaluation of bid had to be done on 8.2.2013. The Executive Engineer, P.I.U. Rural Engineering Department, District Barabanki wrote a letter to the Superintending Engineer, mentioning therein the deficiency as noticed in some of the tenders and asked for guidance from the Superintending Engineer. The Executive Engineer, PMGSY, Rural Engineering Department, Barabanki instead of verifying the bid documents wrote a letter to the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering, Faizabad Circle, Faizabad informing that certain tenderers have made complaints that despite the fact that they have submitted the original documents with their bid documents yet the same were not found during opening of envelops and thus he recommended that the whole tender process be cancelled. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Faizabad Circle, Faizabad, thus wrote a letter bringing to the notice of Director and Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, U.P.Lucknow the complaints made by the said tenderers. It was also informed that out of 96 tenders, in 51, the original documents submitted were not found. Therefore, the Superintending Engineer suggested that the tenders be cancelled. Shri S.C.Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents may not proceed in respect of items/packages in respect whereof there is only one valid tender or there is no valid tender but with regard to other packages where there is more than one tender, there is no reason to cancel and the respondents should proceed further with the process. However, after some arguments, there is a consensus between learned counsel for parties that this writ petition can be disposed of with direction to treat it as a representation to Competent Authority, namely, opposite party no.3, with further direction to decide and dispose of the same on merit within a time frame. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to submit a copy of this petition as representation to the Competent Authority, which shall decide the matter on merit and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Till then, in respect of these packages against which there is more than one bid, the respondents shall not proceed with re-tendering process."
(3.) In compliance of the order, the respondents have passed the order vide Annexure No.1. The operative portion of the order, apposite for adjudication of the case, which is in Hindi, on reproduction reads as: "xxx xxx xxx";