Back
2020 Supreme(All) 398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Govind Mathur, CJ., Ajit Kumar, J.
Narayan Verma And Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. - 8874 of 2020
Decided On : 17-03-2020
For the Petitioner: Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ram Bahadur Singh
Point of Law:
A statute is required to be interpreted in the fashion that allows it to be workable at its optimum and also in consonance to the thrust of the complete enactment
Headnote:
Constitution of India, Art. 226 – Article 226 – Direction of the Government of Uttar Pradesh circulated under a letter dated 16th August, 2019 to the effect that all the contractors registered with any of the government department shall entitled to participate in tender process relating to any work pertaining to the district panchayat – Challenged – Held, finding arrived by Division Bench is apparently in ignorance of the other relevant provisions of the Rules of 1984. No doubt the court while deciding the case aforesaid was known to the statute applicable but did-not chose to appreciate its relevance in entirety, as such the finding arrived is in-curia – if any restriction would have been given in the Rules of 1984 or by specific assertion the “approved contractor” would have been defined in such a manner to create monopoly in grant of work on contract. In entirety, we have to interpret Rule 18 and the term “Approved Contractor” to satisfy thrust of the Rules. As such, a conjoint reading of Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules of 1984 and by taking care of other provisions we have to see the intention of the Rule framing authority – Petition dismissed
Facts of the Case:
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Works Rules, 1984 does not permit a contractor not registered as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1984 to participate in tender process and to have work of district panchayat on contract
Finding of the Court:
Finding arrived by Division Bench is apparently in ignorance of the other relevant provisions of the Rules of 1984. No doubt the court while deciding the case aforesaid was known to the statute applicable but did-not chose to appreciate its relevance in entirety, as such the finding arrived is in-curia – if any restriction would have been given in the Rules of 1984 or by specific assertion the “approved contractor” would have been defined in such a manner to create monopoly in grant of work on contract. In entirety, we have to interpret Rule 18 and the term “Approved Contractor” to satisfy thrust of the Rules. As such, a conjoint reading of Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules of 1984 and by taking care of other provisions we have to see the intention of the Rule framing authority.
Facts of the Case:
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Works Rules, 1984 does not permit a contractor not registered as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1984 to participate in tender process and to have work of district panchayat on contract
JUDGMENT :
1. Challenge in this petition for writ is given to the direction of the Government of Uttar Pradesh circulated under a letter dated 16th August, 2019 to the effect that all the contractors registered with any of the government department shall entitled to participate in tender process relating to any work pertaining to the district panchayat. The decision aforesaid was taken with an object to have a better and broader choice of contractors to undertake civil works available with district panchayats.
2. The argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Works Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1984) does not permit a contractor not registered as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1984 to participate in tender process and to have work of district panchayat on contract.
3. It is stated that a Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Ashok Kumar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition (MB) No.6025 of 2020) has already adjudicated the issue and declared the decision impugned illegal. The relevant part of the judgment aforesaid reads as follows:-
“The Government Order dated 16.08.2019 has been issued in ignorance of the Rule 18 of the Rules of 1984. For ready reference, Rule 18 is quoted hereunder:-
18. Register of approved contractors. – A register of approved contractors shall be maintained in Form No.W-1 in the office of the Parishad or Kshettra Samiti. Contractors shall be approved by inviting applications through advertisement in the local newspapers and after verifying the anticidents of the applicants and obtaining the approval of the Sarvajanik Nirman Samiti or Karya Karini, as the case may be. Every contractor approved for execution of the works of a Parishad or a Kshettra Samiti shall be required to deposit a sum of Rs.100 as Registration fee before his name is brought on the register of approved contractors.
As per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1984, a register of approved contractors shall be maintained in Form W-1 in the office of Panchayat or Kshettra Panchayat. The contractors shall be approved by inviting applications through advertisement. The approved contractor would be for execution of the works of Panchayats. Every contractor needs to deposit a sum of Rs.100, as registration fee.
The Government Order dated 16.8.2019 has been passed in ignorance of the aforesaid though for the object sought to be achieved but it cannot be de hors the statutory rules. A government order can supplement statutory provisions but cannot supplant.
The Government Order has been made applicable on Panchayat while the Irrigation Department as well as the Public Works Department have not permitted any registered contractor of Panchayat to participate in their tender, as has been seen by this Court in similar writ petitions.
In any case, the Government Order dated 16.08.2019 cannot be allowed to stand contrary to Rule 18 of the Rules of 1984 and accordingly to that extent, it is set aside and to be specific on the issue, para no.1 to allow participation of the Contractor registered with the Irrigation Department/Public Works Department/Rural Engineering Department apart from others Governments Department in the tender floated by the Panchayat is set aside.
The tenders impugned herein permit participation of those contractors not registered with the Panchayat. It cannot be accepted and accordingly to that extent, terms of tender would not be enforced.
The participation in the impugned tenders herein would be only of those registered with the Panchayat/Kshettra Panchayat under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1984 till it is not suitably amended.”
4. While meeting with the argument advanced, learned Standing Counsel states that in Ashok Kumar Singh (supra) the Division Bench did not examine complete scheme of the Rules of 1984. Hence, arrived at an erroneous conclusion. It is asserted that the Rules of 1984 no where restricts the contrac
