This is a petition filed by Messrs, Kewal Krishen Vidya Nath of Rajouri for the writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ quashing the order passed in favour of respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 1 and refraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from giving effect to that order.

(2) The facts which gave rise to this petition briefly stated are these. The petitioners carry on business as a firm having its partners Kewal Krishen and Vidya Nath. The Town Area Committee of Rajori auctioned the contract for the collection of Dharat at Rajori on 27-3-1958 and the petitioners along with others bid at the same which was knocked down in favour of respondent. No. 3 for Rs. 35,604. The petitioners approached the Director of Local Bodies offering 5 percent., more than the bid of respondent No. 3 whereupon it was ordered that the auction should take place anew and the bid reopened.

In pursuance of the above directive the bidding was reopened on 1-4-1958 and in open auction the petitioners bid for the same and respondent No. 2 accepted the bid of the petitioners for Rs. 40,000/- and asked the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,000 as security which the petitioners did. Respondent No. 2 submitted the papers for sanction of the contract to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 on 24-4-1958 by his letter No. 55-TJ/54 to respondent No. 2 directed that the contract should be given to respondent No. 3 as the petitioners were indebted to the Town Area Committee Rajouri and the outstanding be recovered from them.

The petitioners were not given any notice to show that they were indebted and the order passed by respondent No. 1 clearly violated the rules and was contrary to the canons of natural justice. It was further alleged that in the auction of 1-4-1958 the next lower bid for the contract was offered by one Hem Raj son of Chuni Lal for Rs. 39,999. If the petitioners were defaulters the bid ought to have been closed in favour of Hem Raj and not in favour of respondent No. 3.

(3) Respondent No. 3 has put in his objections and it has been averred by him that he was the highest bidder when the contract was auctioned on 27-3-1958 and the Minister incharge was bound to recognise that auction and the order of the Director, Local Bodies was illegal as he had not called upon respondent No. 3 to show cause why the reauction should not be ordered.

(4) On behalf of the petitioners the order of the Minister dated 24-4-1958 has been impugned on the ground that there was no amount outstanding against the petitioners and the Minister was not correct in accepting the bid of respondent No. 3 when the bid of the petitioners was the highest on 1-4-1958.

(4a) The order of the Minister incharge reads as under:

"In the circumstances stated, I am directed to say that in accordance with the terms of contract for Dharat no baqayadar is eligible for grant of contract and it is necessary that we should proceed strictly with these terms.

Obviously therefore the contract has to be given to M/s. Ganga Ram and Nandlal in consideration of Rs. 35,604. Effective steps may please be taken to recover the outstanding amount from M/s. Kewal Krishan Vidyanath immediately.

The files received from you are returned herewith."

(5) It appears that the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Rajouri, auctioned the Dharat contract on 27-3-1958 and the contract was auctioned in accordance with the rules framed by the Town Area Committee in that behalf. The highest bid could be accepted only by the Minister incharge .and no one else. It further appears that at the instance of the petitioners, the Director Local Bodies ordered reauctioning of the contract and in pursuance of that order the contract was reauctioned on the 1-4-1958 and the petitioners were the highest bidders and therefore they were asked to start the work subject to the sanction of the Minister incharge.

Under the previous auction which took place on the 27th March respondent No. 3 was asked to start business but on the 1st April the petitioners were gi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document