TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) AN advertisement inviting applications from interested parties for construction of Ropeways was published on 4. 10. 2005 in Newspaper Hindustan Times and Dainik Bhaskar dated 7. 10. 2005 under the Rajasthan Ropeways Act, 1966 (for short `the Act of 1966' ). Copy of this advertisement has been placed on record as ANnex. 1. The petitioner gave his bid and submitted letters ANnex. 2 and ANnex. 3 also to the District Magistrate, Udaipur. The petitioner also deposited requisite amount of Rs. 1000/- vide cash receipt challan Ex. 4 dated 3. 11. 2005. The notices were issued for three projects, namely, (1) Deendayal Park-Manikya Lal Verma Park Machla Magra near Karni Mata Mandir, (2) From Foot hill of Dewali to Neemuch Mata and (3) Motir Magri to Nehru Garden. The petitioner applied only for the Deendayal Park- Manikya Lal Verma Park Ropeway. According to the petitioner, 5 bidder companies gave their offer in response to the above mentioned notice inviting tenders and which are:- (1) M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. , Sahidabad, District Gaziabad, U. P. (2) M/s. Damodar Ropeways & Construction Company (P) Ltd. Kolkata. (3) Pragati Finsect Ltd. , Udaipur (4) Omkareshwear Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. , Jaipur (5) Aravli Airo Ropeway. According to the petitioner, the petitioner applied for only Deendayal Park to Karni Tata Temple Ropeway and did not apply for any other location, still the petitioner was awarded contract for the Ropeway of the location Motimagari to Nehru Garden. The work contract for the location Deendayal Park to Karni Mata Temple was awarded to M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. for which the petitioner applied. M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. subsequently withdrew his offer and in place of M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. , the work was given to respondent No. 3 Onkareshwar Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. According to the petitioner, in fact only M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. and the petitioner were found eligible for award of the contract by the District Collector, Udaipur vide order dated 10. 1. 2006, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annex. 5 and bid of rest of the bidders was rejected. The recommendation of the District Collector was accepted by the Government and it gave approval under Section 8 of the Act of 1966 for award of the work of Deendayal Park to Karni Mata Temple to M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. and for Moti Magri to Nehru Park to the petitioner respectively vide order dated 15. 2. 2006. Copy of this order has been placed on record as Annex. 6. When the petitioner came to know about thrusting contract of the location Moti Magari to Nehru Park upon the petitioner, the petitioner objected to it vide letters dated 2. 8. 2006 (Annex. 9a) and 25. 8. 2006 (Annex. 9b) and requested the District Collector, Udaipur to look into the matter and award the work contract to the petitioner of location Deendayal Park to Karni Mata Temple road. The petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner did not apply for the Location Moti Magari to Nehru Park. According to the petitioner, the respondent Omkareshwar Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. having no connection whatsoever with M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. , got the work contract for the said location Deendayal Park to Karni Mata Temple. In fact M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. entered into a MOU with M/s. Omkareshwar Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. but since their collaboration was cancelled on account of refusal by M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. , the respondent Omkareshwar Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. got another company M/s. Conveyer & Ropeway Services Pvt. Ltd. , Kolkatta to work for the said contract without the respondent issuing fresh contract for the same and without meeting with the grievance of the petitioner. For thus, a public notice was issued by the District Collector, Udaipur on 8. 2. 2007, which was published in the newspaper and copy of this has been placed on record as Annex. 10 by the petitioner along with the writ petition along with the writ petition. When the petitioner was denied the allotment of work of Ropeways for the location Deendayal Park to Karni Mata temple and the work was given to respondent No. 3, the petitioner ultimately served notice upon the respondent through his counsel. Copy of this notice has been placed on record as Annex. 11. The petitioner, in response to the public notice dated 18. 3. 2007 published by the District Collector, Udaipur in the newspaper for grant of work to M/s. Conveyer & Ropeway Service Pvt. Ltd. , Kolkatta, again objected to it and sought copies of the relevant documents by submitting application before the District Collector, Udaipur (Annex. 12) dated 22. 3. 2007. The petitioner also submitted a letter given by the District Collector, Udaipur to the petitioner, dated 2. 4. 2007, by which the petitioner was asked to inform the District Collector, Udaipur whether the petitioner has sufficient land for installing the Ropeway. The petitioner replied to the letter dated 2. 4. 2007 of the District Collector, Udaipur by reply dated 10. 4. 2007 (Annex. 14 ). In background of these facts, the petitioner submitted this writ petition in this Court on 16. 7. 2007. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in permitting a total stranger to bidding process for location Deendayal Park to Karni Mata Temple while deliberately keeping the petitioner out of it is nothing but a colourable exercise of powers at the instance of the private respondent No. 3 calculated solely for the benefit of the private respondent. According to the petitioner, under the Act of 1966, in case the licensee is unable to undertake project of Ropeway then the same has to be cancelled under Section 10 of the Act of 1966 and in case any amendment is required to be made in the original license, the same has to be made in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 10 (1) of the Act of 1966 and a fresh license has is required to be issued. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the action of the respondent is clearly against the provisions of Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act of 1966. It is also submitted that the respondent deliberately, without considering the petitioner's grievance, decided to allot the work to respondent No. 3 which again demonstrates the malafides of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner never applied for the Ropeway Moti Magri to Nehru Garden and that has been allotted to the petitioner. M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. withdrew its bid after it was allotted to M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. , then an stranger was allotted the work by the respondent. It is submitted that there is no reason for denying the work of Deendayal Park to Karni Mata temple to the petitioner when the petitioner was found eligible for award of the work contract. This Court on 17. 7. 2007, after taking note of the fact that according to the petitioner, the District Collector decided to allot the work of Ropeway between Deendayal Park to Karni Mata temple to M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. , for which the petitioner applied and when M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. to whom the work was allotted, withdrew from the work, then the work was give to M/s. Conveyer & Ropeway Service Pvt. Ltd. , who was never bidder for the location concerned. This Court admitted the writ petition and granted interim order to maintain the status quo till further orders.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 and 2 the State and the District Collector, Udaipur submitted their reply and respondent No. 3 also submitted reply to the writ petition. RESPONDENT No. 3 also submitted an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the stay order. According to the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 the petitioner deliberately misled the court and obtained favourable order. The petitioner deliberately stated false facts as well as the writ petition of the petitioner has been filed after inordinate delay. It is also submitted that respondent No. 3 already invested about more than rupees fifty lacks on the project and the petitioner in his writ petition stated that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are likely to grant contract to the private respondent or to some other person without following due process of law, knowing it well that the work was already given to respondent No. 3 long back and respondent No. 3 has invested huge amount for establishing Ropeway work. According to learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, the writ petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner deliberately stated false facts and further stated misleading facts in the writ petition and has filed the writ petition after inordinate delay. On merit, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the scheme of Rajasthan Ropeways Act, 1966 clearly provides the entire procedure for undertaking preliminary investigation. The applications are invited under Section 6 of the Act of 1966 from intending promoters to undertake the necessary preliminary investigation in regard to proposed Ropeway. As per Section 8 of the Act of 1966, the Licensing Authority can accord sanction to the intending promoters to make survey as may be necessary. As per sub-section (2) of Section 8, the licensing Authority, before according sanction under sub- section (1), may also require the intending promoters to submit such detailed estimates, plans, sanctions and specifications and such further information as it may think necessary for the full consideration of the proposal. Once the sanction is accorded under sub-section (1) of Section 8, then after due consideration of the details supplied by the intending promoters, as required under sub-section (2) of Section 8, the Licensing Authority publishers a draft of proposed licence authorising the construction by or on behalf of such promoters subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Licensing Authority may think proper. According to the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the lience authorising the construction of Ropeway can be given only to the person who undertook the preliminary investigation under Chapter III of the Act of 1966. In the present case, from the documents submitted by the petitioner himself, it is clear that M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. was selected for preliminary investigation under Section 8 of the Act of 1966 as back as on 10. 1. 2006 (Annex. 5 ). The petitioner did not challenge this order dated 10. 1. 2006 even in this writ petition and more than 1-1/2 years have already passed to the order dated 10. 1. 2006. The petitioner even did not challenge now-awarding of the work to the petitioner to carry out the preliminary investigation for installing the Ropeway for the location for which, according to the petitioner, he applied and that is Deendayal Park to Karni Mata temple. The State accorded sanction on 15. 2. 2006 for allotment of work to M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. for the location Deendayal Marg to Karni Mata temple and for allotment of work to the petitioner for the location Moti Magri to Nehru Garden. Looking to the nature of the work, the work is done by the parties in collaboration with other and the petitioner himself in his letter dated 13. 3. 2006 itself clearly requested that sanction for the work be accorded to it alongwith M/s. Arawali Aero Rope Travels Pvt. Ltd. and before this Court, the petitioner projected that there cannot be consortium or one cannot have collaboration with the bidder for the purpose of undertaking preliminary investigation for setting up the Ropeway. Without challenging the orders dated 10. 1. 2006 and 15. 2. 2006, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief inasmuch as that the work can be awarded only to the promoters who undertook the preliminary investigation. The petition did not and cannot undertake the survey for the Deendayal Park to Karni Mata temple location for setting up Ropeway. Therefore, the writ petitioner of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. ;