NARENDRA NATH TIWARI - (1.) THE petitioner confines this writ petition only to the extent of first prayer with permission to reserve its right for approaching appropriate forum for remaining relief.
(2.) PERMISSION is accorded. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7th February, 2011 passed by the Respondent No.2Secretary, Department of Industries, whereby the said respondent has dismissed the appeal filed by Respondent No.5M/s. Santhal Multicast Pvt. Ltd. According to the petitioner, during pendency of the appeal they had intervened and were also heard. The Secretary, Industries Department disposed of the said appeal. While disposing of the appeal, the Secretary, Industries Department made some observations, which, according to the petitioner, are prejudicial to their interest. It has been contended that while disposing of the appeal, the appellate authority has observed that the allotment process which was done against the AIADA Board's decision and causing huge financial loss of Rs.20 to 100 lacs may be cancelled and the reallotment be done in transparent and open bid process, after following the due process of project evaluation etc. The parties which fulfil all the prerequisites should only be allowed to take part in the bidding process. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the allotment in its favour has been made in accordance with the AIADA Board's decision, but the said order has reflection leading to cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of AIADA opposed the writ petition and submitted that the contention of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. There is nothing in the order, indicating cancellation of any allotment, which is in accordance with the AIADA Board's decision. The appellate authority has observed that all the allotments must be in accordance with the AIADA Board's decision dated 26th May, 2010, though there is no such direct order. If the petitioner's allotment is against the said Board's decision, it may come within the ambit of the said order. There is no illegality in the said observations of the appellate authority. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. I also perused the impugned order passed by the Secretary, Industries Department, in appeal preferred by the Respondent No.5.;