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


Kunwar Anand Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 54053 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 674 (11 January 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).


Court No. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54053 of 2006

Kunwar Anand Pratap Singh


State of U.P. & Ors.,


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

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from giving effect to the tender finalization order dated 11th September, 2006 and for issuing directions for a fresh issue of the tenders pertaining to Nagar Panchayat Harriya, district Basti.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent Nagar Panchayat invited tenders by publication of notice in the local newspaper on 30th August, 2006 for eight works. The notice stipulated  that the tenders could be purchased up to 8th September, 2006 till 12:00 Noon and they could be submitted on the same date by 2:00 P.M. It was also mentioned that they would be opened on the same date at 2:30 P.M. A notice was thereafter issued in the newspaper that the tenders could be submitted by 11th September, 2006 but the other conditions remained the same.

Sri Bhagwati Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the tenders of respondent nos. 6 to 8 have been accepted in a clandestine manner by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 and has drawn the notice of the Court to the fact that in spite of the transfer of respondent no. 5 in July, 2006 and that though he was on leave, the agreement has been executed with the respondent nos. 6 to 8. He, therefore, submitted that this Court should quash the aforesaid contracts that have been granted in favour of the respondent nos. 6 to 8.

On the other hand, Sri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition contending that initially the petitioners father was the Chairman of the said Nagar Panchayat for a period of five years but subsequently his mother became the Chairman and as his parents ran the administration of the said Nagar Panchayat for a period of 10 years and one of them is again a candidate in the elections scheduled for 3rd November, 2006, the documents showing that the respondent no. 5 was on leave had been prepared by the Clerk who had been under the influence of his parents. He, therefore, submitted that the said documents are not genuine and the contract was executed in accordance with law and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

In view of the allegations made in the petition, this Court vide order dated 9th October, 2006 directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsildar respondent nos. 3 and 5 to appear in person on 16th October, 2006 along with the necessary records and explain the position. The said Officers appeared before this Court and filed their affidavits. From the affidavits that have been filed, the following facts emerge.

1.The tender inviting notice dated 30th August, 2006 made it clear that the tender forms could be purchased up to12:00 Noon on 8th September, 2006 and could be submitted on the same day by 2:00 P.M. and they were to  be opened at 2:30 P.M. on the same date.

2.Because of some administrative exigencies, as there was law and order problem on 8th September, 2006 in the said Nagar Panchayat, the notice was issued in the newspaper on 7th September, 2006 that the submission and opening of the tender would take place on 11th September, 2006. The other conditions, however, remained the same.

3.On that date i.e. 11th September, 2006, large number of tenders were filed for the aforesaid eight works. The breakup that has been indicated is that for work no. 1 five tenders were received, for work no. 2, six tenders were received, for work no. 3, three tenders were received, for work no. 4, four tenders were received, for work no. 5, three tenders were received, for work no. 6, four tenders were received, for work no. 7, three tenders were received and for work no. 8, four tenders were received.

4.The said tenders were opened on 11th September, 2006 and the lowest tenders were accepted.

5.The agreement was executed in favour of the respective contractors on 12th September, 2006.

The tender forms could be purchased from the date of issue of the notice upto 8th September, 2006 but the petitioner never made any attempt to purchase the tender forms. The petitioner has not made any averment in the petition that he had purchased the tender form. The question of submitting the same, therefore, does not arise. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be permitted to urge the grounds taken in the petition. In such a situation when the petitioner did not even purchase the tender form, we fail to understand as under what circumstances he has filed this petition. In such a situation, we doubt the bona fides of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim to be a person aggrieved who has suffered any legal injury.

Even otherwise, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 5 could not have executed the agreement as he had been transferred in July, 2006 cannot be accepted as in the counter affidavit it has been clearly stated that he had not been relieved. The other contention that the agreement had been executed on 11th September, 2006 prior to its acceptance cannot also be accepted as a bare perusal of the agreement indicates that the said respondent had signed it on 12th September, 2006.

It is also not denied by the petitioner that his father and mother had been the Chairman of the said Nagar Panchayat for a period of ten years and one of them was candidate again for the elections scheduled to be held on 3rd November, 2006. The correspondence filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition and subsequent affidavits had been made by his father who had been the former Chairman of the said Nagar Panchayat and endorsement on his letter/applications had been made only by the Clerk and not by any responsible Officer.  

The petition is totally misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 11.1.2007



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.