IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 206 of 2009 M/s Shubham Enterprises. .……… Appellant Versus Bhagwat Singh Rawal & others. .………. Respondents Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for respondents Nos. 2 to 5. & Special Appeal No. 211 of 2009 Bhagwat Singh Rawal. .……… Appellant Versus Rajeev Gandhi Navodaya Vidhyalaya & others..………. Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.K. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No. 5. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Through the instant order, we propose to dispose of two Appeals, one filed by M/s Shubham Enterprises (Special Appeal No. 206 of 2009) and the second filed by Bhagwat Singh Rawal (Special Appeal No. 211 of 2009). 2. Bhagwat Singh Rawal (the appellant in Special Appeal No. 211 of 2009) had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1382 of 2009 (M/S) assailing the award of a food and catering contract to M/s Shubham Enterprises (the appellant in Special Appeal No. 206 of 2009). The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 23.10.2009. The petitioner (Bhagwat Singh Rawal) in the said Writ Petition and respondent No. 5 (M/s Shubham Enterprises) in the said Writ Petition have, both, assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The cause of challenge at the hands of Bhagwat Singh Rawal is, that he was declared ineligible for consideration in the tender process by the learned Single Judge. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention that the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner did not have the required Trade Tax Certificate and was as such ineligible for participating in the proceedings of the tender process. Bhagwat Singh Rawal assails this determination at the hands of the learned Single Judge. In this behalf, it is pointed out, that in response to the Notice Inviting Tenders, the last date of submission of tenders was 21.07.2009 (by 11 a.m.). Although Bhagwat Singh Rawal did possess the Trade Tax Certificate, but it is conceded that, on the stipulated date i.e. 21.07.2009, it stood expired. According to the learned counsel representing Bhagwat Singh Rawal (the appellant in Special Appeal No. 211 of 2009), he had deposited the late fee for renewal of the aforesaid Certificate on 22.07.2009, whereupon on 29.08.2009, the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Pithoragarh, informed the Principal of the Rajeev Gandhi Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Gangolihat, Pithoragarh, about the same. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in Special Appeal No. 211 of 2009 that the tenders, under reference, were required to be opened on 21.07.2009 (at 12 noon), but the same came to be opened only on 23.07.2009. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (in Special Appeal No. 211 of 2009) that the last date of submission of tenders must be deemed to have been extended from 21.07.2009 to 23.07.2009. This submission, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is based on the presumption that the Trade Tax Certificate stood renewed on 22.07.2009. 4. Although, there is no available material with us to determine whether or not the Trade Tax Certificate awarded to Bhagwat Singh Rawal came to be renewed w.e.f. 22.07.2009, yet, for the sake of arguments, we proceed by accepting the same. Undoubtedly, the Notice Inviting Tenders expressly required that the tenders were to be submitted on 21.07.2009 (by 11 a.m.). The aforesaid date and time for submission of tenders, depicted in the Notice Inviting Tenders, was never extended at the hands of the Rajeev Gandhi Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Gangolihat, Pithoragarh. The eligibility of all the tenderers was to be determined with reference to 21.07.2009 (by 11 a.m.). Those not eligible by that date and time could not claim consideration. We are satisfied that the conditions stipulated in the original Notice Inviting Tenders must be treated as binding on all parties. Since, admittedly, the Trade Tax Certificate in the hands of Bhagwat Singh Rawal had expired on 21.07.2009 and had not been renewed by the time the tenders were to be received, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in concluding that Bhagwat Singh Rawal was ineligible to participate in the deliberations leading to the finalisation of the tenders at the hands of the Rajeev Gandhi Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Gangolihat, Pithoragarh. 5. The factual position, insofar as the eligibility of the appellant M/s Shubham Enterprises (who has approached this Court through Special Appeal No. 206 of 2009) is concerned, is of a similar nature. M/s Shubham Enterprises was also held to be ineligible to participate, in the award of the contract under reference, on account of the fact that M/s Shubham Enterprises did not have a valid Food License for the area of Pithoragarh. This determination, at the hands of the learned Single Judge, is subject to serious challenge at the hands of the appellant (M/s Shubham Enterprises). It is submitted that the Notice Inviting Tenders did not require that the Food License was to be from the particular district, wherein the Rajeev Gandhi Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Gangolihat, Pithoragarh, was located. In this behalf, it is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant (in Special Appeal No. 206 of 2009) that M/s Shubham Enterprises had, in its possession, a License issued by the Haldwani Nagar Palika and the respondents ought to have treated the aforesaid Certificate as valid for purposes of eligibility. 6. So as to assail the contention advanced by the learned counsel representing M/s Shubham Enterprises, it is pointed out on behalf of Bhagwat Singh Rawal, that the Certificate produced by M/s Shubham Enterprises was limited to the area of Haldwani itself, and did not extend to the area of Pithoragarh. In order to substantiate his aforesaid contention, learned counsel representing Bhagwat Singh Rawal invited our attention to the U.P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). He also drew our pointed attention to Rule 4 of the Rules. Rule 4, relied upon by the learned counsel, is being extracted hereunder: “4. Licensing authorities. – (1) The authorities mentioned below are empowered to issue licenses in the prescribed form for the manufacture, for sale, for the storage, for the sale and for the distribution of articles of food or any specified articles of food or class of articles of food, in respect of the local areas mentioned against each of them: (a) All Nagar Swasthya Adhikaris, Atirikt Nagar Swasthya Adhikaris or Municipal Medical Officers of Health in Uttar Pradesh. The Corporation or Municipal Areas within their jurisdiction. (b) All Deputy Chief Medical Officers of Health in Uttar Pradesh. The Rural and Urban Areas within their jurisdiction. (c) Senior Medical Officers of Cantonment Board in Uttar Pradesh. The Cantonment Area within their jurisdiction. (d) Divisional Medical Officers of various Indian Railways within Uttar Pradesh. The Railway premises including Railway Colonies within their jurisdiction. (2) The authorities mentioned in sub-rule (1) above shall, for the purposes of these rules, be known as “Licensing Authorities”.” Based on the aforesaid Rule, it is the submission of the learned counsel for Bhagwat Singh Rawal that M/s Shubham Enterprises was ineligible to participate in the finalisation of the tender process on account of its not possessing a Food License which was valid for Pithoragarh. 7. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the rival parties, in respect of the eligibility of M/s Shubham Enterprises. Rule 4 (extracted herein above) leaves no doubt in our minds that the area over which the Certificate was issued by the Haldwani Nagar Palika (which was originally produced by M/s Shubham Enterprises) was the area under the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Nagar Palika and not beyond the same. Undoubtedly, Pithoragarh does not fall within that area. As such, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in declaring respondent No. 5 (M/s Shubham Enterprises) as ineligible to participate in the tender process, because it did not have a valid Food License to operate at Pithoragarh. 8. Despite the aforesaid ineligibility of respondent No. 5 (M/s Shubham Enterprises) to participate in the tender process under reference, the learned Single Judge also noticed in the impugned order dated 23.10.2009 that M/s Shubham Enterprises obtained the required Food License from the Chief Medical Officer, Pithoragarh on 29.08.2009 and was, as such, eligible for the food and catering contract. What cannot be lost sight of is the fact, that the aforesaid eligibility came to be vested in M/s Shubham Enterprises with the Food License issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Pithoragarh, only on 29.08.2009, and as such, just like Bhagwat Singh Rawal, even respondent No. 5 (M/s Shubham Enterprises) was ineligible on the last date of submission of the tenders. 9. Having concluded that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1382 of 2009 (M/S) as also respondent No. 5 therein were ineligible, the learned Single Judge directed respondent No. 1 to invite fresh tenders and finalise the same within one month. Respondent No. 5 was permitted by the learned Single Judge to continue till the finalisation of the said tender process. Fortunately, by an order dated 18.11.2009, while considering one of the Appeals being decided through this order, it was ordered that the process of inviting tenders pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge should continue. We are informed that in furtherance of the aforesaid direction, tenders have been invited for 15.12.2009, and that, they are also scheduled to be opened on the same date. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be met if M/s Shubham Enterprises is allowed to operate till 31.12.2009. In the meantime, the respondents shall continue to finalise the tender process scheduled to be opened on 15.12.2009, and take a final decision thereon, so as to be able to award a contract to the successful party commencing w.e.f. 01.01.2010. 10. In view of the above, the Appeals, referred to in the opening paragraph of the instant order, are hereby dismissed, as being devoid of any merit. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 07.12.2009 07.12.2009 G