Honble MADAN, J.–This appeal arises out of judgment and order dt. 4.2.1999 of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 586/99 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed in limine.

(2). The appellants are the contractors and they had been given contract by Nagar Nigam Jaipur, respondent No. 1 for removal of garbage from the garbage collection points of Nagar Nigam Jaipur on the basis of tenders invited from general public by way of publication in various newspapers for the year 1996-97. In response to the said advertisement, the appellants had submitted their tenders as per terms & conditions of the tender notice and after due scrutiny of their tenders, they were given contract for removal of garbage and transportation. The work contract for the year 1996-97 was extended for the next year i.e. 1997-98 (vide Annexure-3) to the writ petition and again for the year 1998-99 (vide Annexure-4) to the writ petition with 10% increase of rates.

(3). The case of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that for the year 1999-2000 the committee which was constituted by the Jaipur Nagar Nigam, respondent No. 1 had recommended the names of the appellants for extension of work order and even the Chairman of the committee had also recommended their case for extension. This was in view of the fact that rates quoted by the appellants were lowest but still respondent No. 4, Mayor, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur was adamant in not complying with the recommendations of the committee and instead called for another tender. It was submitted that since the appellants had taken the loan for arranging the trollies for collecting garbage etc. and in view of the financial implications they had been adversely subjected to loss. ,

(4). The learned Single Judge was of the view that since no monopoly could be created in favour of the appellants for all times to come hence, the appellants could not claim statutory right for extension of their tenders from time to time. He was further of the view that since no legal or statutory right accrues to the appellants for the work order for the year 1999-2000 to be awarded to them only, hence it was not open to the appellants to insist upon the respondent-Jaipur Nagar Nigam not to invite fresh tenders from the general public now, or in future as the Jaipur Nagar Nigam could not be restrained to do so. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.

(5). Being aggrieved, the appellants have come up before this Court by way of the instant appeal.

(6). We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant documents on the record as well as the order of the learned Single Judge and the legal position on the subject.

(7). During the course of hearing, Mrs. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended at the bar that keeping in view the (a) past good performance of the appellants as contractor; (b) that their work order for removal of garbage was extended twice i.e. for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99, Annexure 3 & 4, respectively; (c) that the Chairman of the Committee (Health Sanitation) had very strongly recommended the case of the appellants for extension of work contract to the Director Local Bodies, respondent No. 3 and to Mayor, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, respondent No. 4, the appellants were entitled to be given the work contract for the year 1999-2000 as well. Mrs. Naina Saraf further contended that appellants had already purchased the equipment for better and speedy work for which they had incurred loan on the basis of the recommendations of the Chairman of the Committee and they were conveyed assurance by the then Mayor of Jaipur Nagar Nigam that their work contract will be extended for successive three years. The said recommendations are said to have been approved by the Zonal Commissioner of Jaipur Nagar Nigam and thereafter the matter was referred to Mayor, Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. It is alle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document