Back
2021 Supreme(Guj) 179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M.CHHAYA, R.P.DHOLARIA, JJ.
Hitesh Kantilal Kotak Karta Of Hitesh Kantilal Kotak (HUF) – Appellant
Versus
District Election Officer And Collector, Ahmedabad – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 3136 of 2021
Decided on : 20-02-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR YH MOTIRAMANI, MR.DIVYESH G NIMAVAT
For the Respondent: Mr. Mitul Shelat with MS DISHA N NANAVATY, Mr. Manisha Lavkumar, Government Pleader with Ms. Aishvarya Gupta with Mr. Tirthraj Pandya
Point of Law: Once having participated in the process and on failure to get work order, the petitioner cannot revert back and say that procedure smacks of mala fide.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Business of videography and photography - Seeking to quash and set aside and/or cancel allotment order issued by respondent no.1 – District Election Officer & Collector in favour of respondent no.3 - Direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to allot work of undertaking photography and videography during forthcoming Panchayat Elections - Case of petitioner that petitioner is engaged in business of videography and photography since 2009 and has successfully carried out videography work of General Assembly/Lokhsabha Elections - Petitioner has experience of photography and videography of Taluka Panchayat, District Panchayat, Nagarpalika and Maha Nagarpalika Elections and it is case of petitioner that petitioner possesses sufficient experience and is capable of performing work of photography and videography during elections.
Finding of the Court: It clearly recites that authority has considered videography and photography order and having considered three offers received one from petitioner and other from M/s. Royal Infotech and respondent no.3 have given work order to respondent no.3. Order impugned also further recites that what has weighed in favour of respondent no.3 for specialization work of videography and photography during election process - It appears that respondent no.3 is not an alien to work of videography and photography but has vast experience and expertise in such work, which has prompted respondent authorities to select best videographer and photographer for specialized work of videography and photography of coming election of local authorities. Even contention raised by petitioner that if tender would have been issued respondent no.3 would not have fulfilled condition, it is totally without any basis or foundation in petition itself
Result: Petition rejected.
ORDER :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1.0. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following main prayers:
“A. That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside and/or cancel the allotment order dated 30.01.2021 issued by the respondent no.1 – District Election Officer & Collector, Ahmedabad in favour of respondent no.3;
B. That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to allot the work of undertaking photography and videography during forthcoming Panchayat Elections to be held in February 2021 in favour of the petitioner:”
2.0. The following facts emerge from the record of the petition.
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in the business of videography and photography since 2009 and has successfully carried out videography work of General Assembly/Lokhsabha Elections held in the year 2012 and 2019 for the Districts of Botad, Gandhinagar, Mehsana and Surat. It is also the case of the petitioner that petitioner has experience of photography and videography of Taluka Panchayat, District Panchayat, Nagarpalika and Maha Nagarpalika Elections and it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner possesses the sufficient experience and is capable of performing the work of photography and videography during the elections.
2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that usually the allotment of work of photography and videography during the election is done through tender process, however recently the elections have been announced for District Panchayat and Taluka Panchayat in the State of Gujarat, which is scheduled to be held in the month of February 2021 and counting is on 3.3.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that during the election photography and videography is required to be done throughout the election process at each and every polling booth during the election, movements of ballots during the election and even while counting the ballots. It is the case of the petitioner that on modalities of election being issued by the State Election Commission, tenders were floated for photography and videography for the District of Amreli, Bharuch, Bhavnagar, Narmada, Navsari, Patan, Porbandar, Tapi, Vyara and Vadodara, However, the respondent no.1 – District Election Officer did not float any tender and chose to allot the work on the basis of rates quoted for photography and videography during Loksabha Election, 2019. It the case of the petitioner that petitioner also addressed a letter dated 25.1.2021 and gave an offer to do the work of photography and videography for the forthcoming Corporation and Panchayat elections scheduled to be conducted in this month. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner quoted 25% less than last awarded work order during the Loksabha Election 2019 and similarly two more parties viz. M/s. Royal Infotech and M/s. Harsadh Studio (respondent no.3) offered to do the work at 20% and 15% respectively less than the last awarded work order of Loksabha Elections, 2019. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 herein quoted highest rates amongst the three offerers. It is further the case of the petitioner that however by the impugned order dated 30.01.2021, despite the fact that respondent no.3 had quoted highest rate, has been allotted work by the respondent authority. The record indicates that the again by communication dated 30.01.2021 the petitioner approached the respondent no.1 to reconsider the decision of allotting the work order in favour of the respondent no.3 as the petitioner quoted lower rates in comparison to respondent no.3. It is also stated by the petitioner that petitioner has sufficient work experience to unde
