##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1764 of 2026

Shailesh Singh .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kukmar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : R.K. Ojha (Sr. Adv.), Ashish Kumar

Singh, Sitaram Yadav, Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, C.S.C.

Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ashish Kumar Singh and

Shri Sitaram Yadav appearing for respondent no. 4.

3. This petition in purported public interest has been filed on 21.07.2026 praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 11.12.2015 insofar as it approves the award of tender to respondent no. 4, namely, Marya Forzen Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘the Company’) and quash all agreements and actions taken pursuant thereto. Further relief has been claimed seeking an order/direction so as to hold tender process culminating in letter dated 11.12.2015 as vitiated by fraud, collusion and void. A further direction has been sought to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to conduct a fresh and transparent re-tender with mandatory verification of every bidder’s incorporation date, directorship and beneficial ownership against the records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) with a further direction to the APEDA and the Registrar of Companies, Kanpur to produce certified copies of the complete incorporation, director-appointment and registration records of respondent

WPIL No. 1764 of 2026

2

no. 4.

4. The petitioner has disclosed his credentials as a public spirited citizen, an investigative journalist and editor of 'Rashtriya Samasya'. It is stated in the petition that he has been consistently engaged in matters affecting larger public interest and has approached constitutional courts on several occasions by instituting public interest litigations concerning issues of governance, environmental protection, public administration and

accountability of statutory authorities.

5. As far as reliefs claimed in the petition, statement is that a Public Private Partnership (‘PPP’) concession relating to the Municipal slaughter house at Mohanpur Thiriya, Bareilly, based upon tender process floated in 2014 was granted in favour of respondent no. 4. The pleadings refer to financial worth of the Company, its date of incorporation, its participation in the tender process and award of contract in the year 2015. The challenge to the same has been laid on the ground that award of the contract/tender being hit by Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and being based upon fraud, abuse of process, collusive bidding

etc., the same is unsustainable.

6. When the matter came up before the Court on 28.07.2026, respondent no. 4 put in appearance through counsel and filed a short counter affidavit making serious allegations against the petitioner. Submission was made that several aspects had not been disclosed in the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time to obtain instructions in the

matter by the next date fixed.

7. Today, a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for the parties have been finally heard.

8. In view of the submissions made on behalf of respondent no. 4 that various facts had not been disclosed by the petitioner, the Court

proceeded to consider the same first.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 has made submissions that the petition has been filed with an oblique and co-lateral object to unsettle a commercial concession granted more than a decade

WPIL No. 1764 of 2026

3

ago in favour of the Company.