Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
P.K. Jaiswal, Irshad Ali, JJ.
Rakesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Misc. Bench No. 2707 of 2014
Decided On : 23-09-2019
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 386, 147, 148, 504, 506 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 –Section 155(2) – Departmental Action Issue –When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object
Facts of the case:
This public interest litigation has been filed to – Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case – Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the concerned respondent to take suitable departmental action against all the officers involved in the grant of contract – Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the concerned respondent to lodge an FIR against the respondent Co. as well as the authorities involve in the grant of contract and to take necessary penal action against all guilty persons.
Finding of the court: – Held, court is of the view that both the writ petitions do not come within the domain of public interest litigation nor a espouse any kind of public cause, a pure and simple abuse of public interest litigation, not conceived to be used for this purpose – Therefore, while dismissing the writ petitions, Rs. 5000/- (to each of the writ petitioner) is imposed as cost to be deposited by the writ petitioners before Oudh Bar Association for the purchase of its library book, under intimation of Senior Registrar of this Bench, failing which appropriate action be initiated against each of the petitioner.
Result: – Order Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri. Asok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. J.B.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in misc. bench No. 2707 of 2014 and respondent No. 4 in misc. bench No. 24917 of 2016 and Sri. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. These two petitions were heard and are being decided together and the facts are being taken from misc. bench No. 2707 of 2014.
3. This public interest litigation has been filed by Rakesh Singh, who himself to be claiming as a social worker and a public spirited person. According to the petitioner, the issue involved in this writ petition is purely in the public interest and his near and dear relations are not going to be benefited in any manner.
4. In the writ petition the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:
(ii). Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the concerned respondent to lodge an FIR against the respondent Co. as well as the authorities involve in the grant of contract and to take necessary penal action against all guilty persons.
(iii). Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the concerned respondent to take suitable departmental action against all the officers involved in the grant of contract.
(iv). Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
5. The facts of the present case are that the Irrigation Department, Government of U.P. floated a tender for construction of Rapi Main Canal and its distribution system was prescribed from 0.0 Km. to 125 Km. and Bhakhla Suphon on Rapti Link Channel in 7 lots. The tender notice was published on 08.10.2012 and the tender document was available on the website of the Department. In condition No. 3 of the tender notice it was provided that every bidder was required to submit the following documents:-
(ii) Character Certificate issued by the District Magistrate (ID-1)
(iii) Solvency Certificate (IDT-2)
(iv) Self Declaration Affidavit (IDT-3)
The aforesaid documents were to be scanned on to the website and to be produced in original at the time of opening of the bid.
The condition No. 3 mentioned IDT-1, IDT-2 and IDT-3, which seem to be the formats in which the certificates mentioned in the tender notice would need to be submitted, the tender notice as uploaded on the website did not, in fact, contain the IDT-1, IDT-2 and IDT-3 formats and the same were not part of the tender notice as uploaded on the website by the State Government.
The tender notice provided that the pre-qualification bid submission was to start from 17.11.2012 and end on 26.11.2012 and the bids would be opened on 27.11.2012. The tender notice nowhere provides that the solvency certificate which was required to be submitted along with the pre-qualification bid or to be obtained from any particular authority. Further, the tender document also did not provide any particular format for the solvency certificate.
The respondent No. 6 applied for lot No. 4 in the tender and obtained solvency certificate from the bank and submitted its pre-qualification bid on 17.11.2012 on the website of the Irrigation Department as prescribed under the tender conditions. The respondent No. 6 was found qualified in the pre-qualification bid and subsequently its financial bid having found t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
