Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vipin Sanghi, Ravindra Maithani, JJ.
M/s Advitya Techno Solution Pvt Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1273 & 1722 of 2022
Decided On : 22-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.C. Pant,
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Mr. P.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Mr. Vipul Sharma
The court emphasized the importance of transparency, reasonableness, and adherence to eligibility criteria in administrative actions.
Headnote:
EoI - Establishment of Automated Testing Station - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Chapter XI - Rule 63(6), Rule 174, Rule 175, Rule 176 - The court discussed the amendments made to the Rules, the eligibility criteria for establishing an automated testing station, and the process followed by the State Government in awarding work orders for establishing the stations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the award of work orders for establishing Automated Testing Stations, alleging that the eligibility criteria were modified to favor certain participants. They also contested the validity of the lease deeds and the registration dates of the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the modifications to the EoI were made known to all participants and were not specific to any individual. It concluded that the State Government followed a transparent and reasonable process in awarding the work orders, and there was no evidence of irrationality, illegality, or procedural impropriety.
Issues: Challenge to the modifications of eligibility criteria, validity of lease deeds, and registration dates of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of judicial review, discussed the amendments to the Rules, and evaluated the transparency and reasonableness of the process followed by the State Government.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the award of work orders for establishing the Automated Testing Stations.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Since common question of law is involved in both these writ petitions, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.
2. The Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand published an Expression of Interest (“EoI”) on 14.12.2021 for establishment of Automated Testing Station (for short, “the Station”) in Doiwala Region in District Dehradun and nearby places of Rudrapur in District Udham Singh Nagar. It was so done because the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (“the Rules”) were amended in the year 2021 and Chapter XI was added into it. It also added sub-rule (6) to Rule 63 of the Rules, as follows:
“(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the recognition, regulation and control of automated testing station, for the purposes of section 56 of the Act, shall be as per Chapter XI of these rules.
3. Both the petitioners submitted their EoIs for establishing the Station near Doiwala Region in District Dehradun. The respondent no. 5 (in both the writ petitions) also submitted EoI and he was given work order for establishing the Station in District Dehradun. The respondent no. 6, namely, Pranam Builders Pvt. Ltd. Gomti Nagar (in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1273 of 2022) was awarded work order for establishing the Station within District Udham Singh Nagar by communication dated 15.03.2022. It has been put to challenge in both these petitions. Challenge has also been made to the communication dated 07.04.2022, by which the petitioners’ EoIs have been rejected. The petitioner has also sought related reliefs.
FACTS
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1273 of 2022
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the condition of EoI was subsequently changed by the respondent authorities so as to give an opportunity to the respondent no. 5 to meet the eligibility criteria. Initially, the date for submission of EoI was 31.12.2021, but it was further extended till 07.01.2022. Also, initially, according to the EoI, the premises where the automated testing station was to be housed was required to be in possession of the applicant based on any lease or otherwise on 14.12.2021. But, subsequently, it was changed to the effect that the applicant shall have lease of the property where the Station was to be established on the date when the EoI is submitted.
5. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the application filed by the respondent no. 5, he has not disclosed his Udyam, Adhar Number, PAN and GST Number. Instead, he gave these numbers of some other entities. The respondent no. 5 obtained Udyam Registration Number on 15.01.2022, PAN on 15.01.2022 and GST No. 24.03.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that these numbers were obtained by the respondent no. 5 after 07.01.2022, when he submitted his application for establishing the Station. The respondent no. 5 was not incorporated as an entity till 15.01.2022. In addition to it, it has also been the case of the petitioner that, in fact, the respondent no. 5 did not have the lease of the land initially when he filed application for establishing the Station on 27.12.2021.
6. The challenge is also made to the award of work to the respondent no. 6 within District Udham Singh Nagar on the ground that the lease deed of the respondent no. 6 was not registered on the date when he submitted his application. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 6 have been awarded the work in contravention of the conditions of EoI.
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1722 of 2022
7. It is the case of the petitioner that initial condition of the EoI was subsequently modified. The date for submission of EoI was extended till 07.01.2022 and registration of lease deed was made mandatory of the land, which, according to the petitioner, was not mentioned earlier as an eligibility criteria in the EoI dated 14.12.2021. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 was given one m
