IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 784 of 2010 Sri Charan Singh S/O Chhajju Singh, R/O 208, West End Road, Meerut Cantt., Meerut, U.P. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State of U.P. through Secretary of Irrigation Department, Lucknow. 2. Superintending Engineer, Madhya Ganga Canal, Nirman Mandal, Roorkee. 3. M/s Rahees Pal Construction Pvt. Ltd., 509, Mateshwari Bhawan 100 Ft. Road, Professor Colony, Ramghat Road, Aligarh, through its Proprietor. … Respondents. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel (U.P.Govt.) for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Date June 09, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the rejoinder affidavit. The same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record including the memo of writ petition, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2 as well as the rejoinder affidavit, filed by the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28- 4-2010 by which petitioner’s technical bind has been rejected. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a “AA” class contractor registered in Irrigation Department and the petitioner is continuously carrying his contract business in the Irrigation Department since long. The respondent no.1 issued a short term tender notice No. 12/SE/ 2009-10 thereby inviting tenders for the works mentioned in the tender notice. The petitioner and respondent no. 3 applied for the work shown at serial no.6. The petitioner submitted Photostat certified copy of registration certificate and IDT-1 and IDT-2 along with the tender application 2 along with necessary certificates on 24-4-2010. The respondents have simultaneously invited tender notices for some other circles of Meerut and Moradabad. By the impugned order dated 28-4-2010, the respondent no. 3 was declared as successful candidate while the petitioner was declared unsuccessful on the ground of non submission of original copy of IDT-1 and IDT-2. On behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, counter affidavit has been filed. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the financial bid has been finalized in favour of the respondent no. 3 and letter of acceptance has already been issued to him on 14-5- 2010. It is also stated that the agreement has already been signed between the parties and the work under contract is in progress since 17-5-2010 onwards. It is also stated that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the condition no. 24 of the tender notice and it was a condition precedent that the petitioner shall furnish IDT-1, IDT-2 and IDT-3 forms as well as certificate of turnover in original. Since the petitioner had not submitted the said documents in original. It is also stated that the petitioner had tampered with IDT-3 form and the FDR submitted by the petitioner had been pledged in the name of Charan Singh instead of Executive Engineer, Madya Ganga Canal Construction Division-1 Haridwar. In the rejoinder affidavit, the averments made in the counter affidavit have been refuted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the condition of presenting original documents was at pre-bidding stage only. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioner had not even filed the original certificates at pre-bidding stage also. This fact is not disputed that the petitioner had not filed original IDT-1. The petitioner had submitted only photocopy of IDT-2 form (solvency certificate) along with his application, whereas filing of original documents has been made obligatory in condition no. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 also argued that the petitioner has not properly pledged the F.D.R. in favour of the 3 Executive Engineer concerned and the declaration certificate filed by the petitioner was found to be erroneous by the authority concerned. In these circumstances, the rejection of the tender submitted by the petitioner is just and proper and the impugned order may not be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has urged that similar controversy was involved in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 212 of 2010, Charan Singh Vs. Superintending Engineer and three others and this Court has already dismissed the said writ petition by order dated 9-6-2010. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties at length, it is established that in the tender notice No. 12/S.E./2009-10 in question, it was a condition precedent that original copy of the aforesaid certificates and documents were to be filed by the petitioner at the time of submitting his bid and as those certificates were undisputedly not filed by the petitioner in original. I am of the considered view that when there is a positive condition no.24, which required the petitioner to file the original copy of certificates and turnover i.e. IDT-1, IDT-2 etc. along with his bid and when the same was not adhered to by the petitioner, no case of interference in this writ petition is made out is favour of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has admittedly not filed original IDT-2 Form and has also not furnished original turnover as required under condition no. 24 of the tender notice, therefore, the tender submitted by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the authority concerned. For the reasons and discussion above, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or manifest error of law, therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. ( B.S.Verma, J.) RCP