Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. ANSHU DIXIT versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Anshu Dixit v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - C No. 3072 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1318 (18 January 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3072 of 2006

Smt. Anshu Dixit       ------- Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors. ------- Respondents

     ----------------

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

Similar writ petition being Writ Petition No. 75887 of 2005, Ram Narayan Dixit Vs. Union of India was disposed of finally by order dated 15.12.2005. We have heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Govind Saran for the respondents. This writ petition is also disposed of in view of same terms and with the same directions as contained in the judgment dated 15.12.2005, but subject to one further condition, namely that at the time of depositing the fresh Bank draft, the petitioner will also deposit with the respondent no. 3 a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. This further amount  will be utilized by the respondent no. 3 in paying the to and fro expenses of such of the persons who decide to be present on the day of opening of the petitioner's financial bid and also the expenses incurred by respondent no. 3 in sending notices to all such bidders whose financial bids have already been opened. This condition is being imposed upon the petitioner for the reason that the financial bids have already been opened and again the bidders whose financial bids have already been opened, are now to again attend the opening of the bid of the petitioner. There is no fault of the bidders whose bids have already been opened and it is only on account of the fault  of the petitioner that they are being summoned and, therefore, it would be unfair if they are summoned again at their own expense and the liability is unnecessarily put not only on such bidders but also on the railways in issuing notices to such bidders. It is for this reason that the petitioner is being put to this additional condition of depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/-.

The to and fro fare to be paid will be Second class railway fare and the fact that such payment would be made will be notified  in the applications sent to other successful tenderers by the respondent no. 3. If the respondent no. 3 has to incur liability more than Rs. 10,000/-, the same will be paid by the petitioner within such time as may be fixed by respondent no. 3 failing which the petitioner's bid will stand cancelled. If the liability of the respondent no. 3 is less than the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, the balance amount will be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. Further if after examining the technical bid, it is found that the financial bid of the petitioner is not entitled to be opened, the entire amount as deposited above by the petitioner will be refunded to the petitioner.

Copy of the order 15.12.2005 will accompany the certified copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

18.1.2006

VKS


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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