JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Alok Singh, J

1. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that petitioner is a proprietorship firm and Mr. Harish Kumar Sharma is its authorized signatory. Petitioner firm is engaged in providing Helipad on rent and has its own Helipad at village Sersi, Mandakini Valley, Tehsil Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag. In the month of February, 2019 notice inviting tenders for providing Helicopter Shuttle Services on select routes were invited. Last date for submission of bids was 25.02.2019 at 01.00 hours. Vide corrigendum dated 22.02.2019, last date for submission of tender was extended till 01.03.2019 at 01.30 hours. Vide Government Order dated 09.06.2016, Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand directed the District Magistrate, Rudraprayag and Uttarakhand Civil Aviation Department not to grant permission for construction private Helipad, as there are already 14 Helipads in existence. This order was modified on 16.02.2019 whereby 4 additional Helipads of respondents no. 6 to 9 were included for Helicopter services only for the season 2019. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 16.02.2019 & 22.02.2019 and for excluding the name respondents no. 6 to 9 from bid process.

2. Heard Mr. Gopal K. Verma and Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for respondent no. 10, Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent nos. 6 to 9 and perused the record.

3. Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner submits that respondents no. 6 to 9 in connivance with State authorities have managed to enter in the bid process. He placing reliance on Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2, submits that on the basis of report of Incharge Revenue Inspector, private respondents managed to obtain Government Order dated 16.02.2019. While as per Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, District Magistrate herself had directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ukhimath not to grant permission for construction of any private Helipad and respondents no. 6 to 9 have constructed their Helipad illegally.

4. Per contra, Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Sr. Advocate raised a preliminary objection that present writ petition is not maintainable, as writ petition is filed by Mr. Harish Kumar Sharma as authorized signatory while there is no power of attorney only Director has authorized the petitioner to file present writ petition. Name of the Director of the Company is also not shown. Petitioner has not disclosed his post or capacity in the said firm.

5. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Sr. Advocate further submits that present bids are invited for shuttle service of helicopters and petitioner is a Helipad owner, he has nothing to do with the tender process. Petitioner cannot curtail the rights of respondents no. 6 to 9 by way of filing writ petition and petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned orders, as he has not participated in the tender process.

6. All the other counsel for the respondents adopted the arguments of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate.

7. In paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, petitioner has stated that petitioner has also participated in the tender process in association with Deccan Aviation, who has applied for Narayan Dham Helipad. On page no. 73 and 76 of the writ petition, list of 20 and 24 Helipads respectively are mentioned. In the said list, location of Narayan Dham Helipad is mentioned at Sitapur/Sersi. Petitioner has brought nothing on record to show that Narayan Dham Helipad is owned by petitioner firm or in what manner petitioner is connected with Narayan Dham Helipad. Therefore, in my opinion, it can safely be said that petitioner has not participated in the tende