IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Stay Application No.379 of 2011 Urgency application No.166 of 2011 In Writ Petition No. 108 of 2011 (S/S) R.K. Travels and others. ……Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others. …….Respondents. Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing counsel for the Central Government. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought following reliefs:- (1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned advertisement/notice of third respondent dated 3-12-2010 inviting fresh sealed tenders (as published in Dainik Jagran dated 3-12-2010) and quash the advertisement/notice of third respondent dated 15-12-2010 extending the date of submission of fresh tenders upto 27-12-20109 ( as published in Dainik Jagran dated 15-12- 2010) Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the present petition. (2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed with the tender process pursuant to the impugned advertisement/notice of third respondent dated 3-12-2010 inviting fresh sealed tenders (as published in Dainik Jagran dated 3- 12-2010) and advertisement/notice of third respondent dated 15-12-2010 extending the date 2 of submission of fresh tenders upto 27-12-2010( as published in Dainik Jagran dated 15-12-2010) annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the present petition. (3) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice. (4) Allow the writ petition with costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in para No.6 to the writ petition the petitioner was a lowest bidder and a bid was open on 23-11-2010. The five persons have floated their tenders out of which four persons were found illegible as per the condition of the tender notice on the ground of model, one person remain there, therefore, fresh tender was invited. On the basis of the instruction received, learned standing counsel for the central government has stated before this Court that there was a condition precedent in the tender notice that the vehicle should be of the year 2007 or onwards. I find no ground to entertain the writ petition, since there was a condition precedent in the tender notice that the vehicle should be of the year 2007 or onwards. The petitioner vehicles are prior to year 2007. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) Vacation Judge 14-01-2011 3 MK