- (1.) THE petitioner runs a transport business and is a handling transport contractor, who has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 31.3.2008, passed by the Director (Agriculture), Government of U.P., Lucknow, whereby the work order issued to the petitioner after conclusion of the contract with the respondent Nos. 3 and 5, has been cancelled on the grounds that it has been done unilaterally without any notice or opportunity to the peti­tioner being without jurisdiction with a view to favour the respondent No. 4.
(2.) THE facts in brief that have given rise to this present petition are, that tenders were invited for the transportation of Seeds and Fertilizers by the Agricul­ture department for the year 2008-09. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 both submitted their tenders and the lowest rates offered were that by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner had offered the second lowest rate. The tenders were final­ized in favour of the petitioner, as the Respondent No. 4 had been unable to furnish the original complete documents in respect of the proof of ownership of the vehicles that were to be deployed for the purposes of transportation. The tenders were invited vide advertisement dated 27.2.2008 and the work order was finalized accepting the bid of the petitioner on 1.3.2008. The formalities were completed by the petitioner on 18.3.2008 and the work order was issued on 1.4.2008. The impugned order was passed on 31.3.2008 whereafter the petitioner moved a complaint which was sought to be inquired into, on-which comments were submitted by the Joint Director (Agriculture) on 29.4.2008 stating therein that the contract had been concluded in favour of the petitioner and further the stand taken by the Respondent No. 4 that he was not given an opportunity to submit his documents was incorrect. However, the Joint Director (Agriculture) sent an intimation to District Agriculture Officer, Pratapgarh, who ultimately on 30.4.2008 informed the petitioner that the work order in his favour has been can­celled. The order dated 31.3.2008 was, therefore, communicated to the petitioner through the order dated 30.4.2008 both of which are impugned in the present writ petition. We have heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 5 and Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.
(3.) IT has been urged by Sri Parekh that in response to the tender, the peti­tioner had submitted all documents pertaining to the availability of the Trucks that were to be deployed for the purposes of transportation. The Respondent No. 4 had mentioned that he would make available his only Truck bearing registration No. USS-1834. Sri Parekh submitted that upon scrutiny of the documents, it was found that Respondent No. 4 had submitted only a photostat copy of the said registration papers and which was also not correct inasmuch as the petitioner had already surrendered the documents of his vehicle to the Regional Transport Officer, Pratapgarh, on 31.12.2007. In this view of the matter, the Respondent No. 4 did not fulfil the condition No. 4 of the terms and conditions of the advertisement inviting tenders inasmuch as the Respondent No. 4 was not the owner of any registered vehicle. He has further submitted that it was only on 2.5.2008 that the Respondent No. 4 succeeded in getting the vehicle released and, as such, ac­cording to terms and conditions of the tender, there was no registered vehicle avail­able with the Respondent No. 4 so as to fulfil the terms and conditions for the acceptance of his tender. Sri Parekh has further invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by District Agriculture Officer on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, wherein it has been clearly stated that since the Respondent Noo4 failed to fulfil and comply with the terms and conditions as contained in the tender notice, therefore, the petitioner, who was the second lowest tenderer, was awarded the contract vide order dated 1.3.2008.;