Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Anil Kumar Grovar v. State Of U.P.Thru' Collector Bareilly & Others - WRIT - C No. 2307 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 3039 (23 February 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2307 of 2002

Anil Kumar Grovar


State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 10.01.2002 published in the newspaper "Dainik Jagran" for allotment of plot C-15 in question in the Scheme "Deen Dayala Puram Yojana  advanced and floated by the Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly (hereinafter called the ''Authority').

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Authority introduced a scheme and invited tenders for different plots. The petitioner submitted the tender in respect of Plot No. C-15 offering the rate of Rs.5,751/- per sq. meters. However, other persons also submitted their tenders. The petitioner made the highest offer. However, after submission of the tenders, the matter was considered by the Competent Authority and the Authority passed the order that considering the location and apprehension of litigation, it was not desirable to make the allotment, therefore, further tenders were directed to be invited vide order dated 15.06.2001. Subsequent thereto, the tenders were invited on 10.01.2002, which is being challenged.  

We have heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Anil Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Authority.

It has been submitted by Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel that the tenders of another person Shri Ajit Sharma was lower than the petitioner and further stipulation in his tender that he was willing to pay 10 percent more if there is any offer of higher amount than him, could not be considered to be a valid tender. Therefore, the order dated 15.06.2001 is invalid and there was no occasion for the respondent no.4 to invite fresh tenders on 10.01.2002. The said tender inviting notice is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, Shri Anil Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Authority has submitted that the location of plot is far better than any other plot. The amount of tender offered by the petitioner was not considered to be adequate, therefore, the decision was taken to invite fresh tenders and not only on 10.01.2002 subsequent thereto also tenders had been invited for the said plot but the matter could not be finalized till today because of the interim order passed by this Court. Shri Tiwari  also has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition  contending that the petitioner has challenged the consequential notice inviting tenders dated 10.01.2002 without challenging the order of not accepting his bid vide order dated 15.06.2001. Therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, the order dated 15.06.2001, by which the tender submitted by the petitioner has not been accepted, in spite of the fact that he offered the highest amount, is not under challenge. The said order was filed along with the counter affidavit by the respondent Authority on 25.02.2002. Even if the petitioner was not aware of the said order, he did not make any attempt to amend the petition subsequent to filing the counter affidavit. Till today, no prayer has been made to quash the order dated 15.06.2001.

Challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order is not permissible in law.

In P. Chithranja Menon & ors. Vs. A. Balakrishnan & ors., AIR  1977  SC  1720,  the Hon'ble Supreme  Court  held that in  absence  of challenge  to  the basic order, subsequent  consequential order cannot be challenged.

Similar view has been reiterated in Roshan Lal & ors. Vs. International Airport Authority of India & ors., AIR  1981  SC  597, wherein the  petitions were primarily confined to the seniority list and the Apex Court held that challenge to appointment orders could not be entertained  because of inordinate delay and in absence of the same, validity of consequential seniority cannot be examined.  In such a case, a party is under a legal obligation to challenge the basic order and if and only if the same is found to be wrong, consequential orders may be examined.

In H.V. Pardasani etc. Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR  1985  SC 781, the Apex Court observed that if "petitioners are not able to establish that the  determination of  their  seniority  is wrong and  they  have  been  prejudiced  by  such adverse determination,  their  ultimate claim  to promotion would, in deed, not succeed."

Similar view reiterated in Government of Maharashtra & ors. Vs. Deokar's Distillery, (2003) 5 SCC 669.

In view of the above, as the petitioner has never challenged the order dated 15.06.2001, he cannot be permitted to agitate the subsequent developments and therefore, validity of tender inviting notice dated 10.01.2002 cannot be examined.

Admittedly, subsequent to the tender inviting notice dated 10.01.2002, the tenders had been invited several times though the matter has not yet been finalized.

As the order of not accepting the highest tender of the petitioner vide order dated 15.06.2001 is not under challenge, the writ petition cannot be entertained. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.