IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 45 of 2011 Satish Kumar Kaushik S/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o 2- Yadavpuri, Roorkee, District Haridwar. ….……….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Irrigation Department, Dehradun. 2. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Khand, Haridwar, District Haridwar. 3. Up Rajasva Adhikari, Irrigation Khand Haridwar, District Haridwar. 4. District Magistrate, Haridwar through its Nominated Agent, Haridwar. ……………. Respondents Present: Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, Judge Date: 22nd June, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In this Public Interest Litigation, petitioner is contending that two clauses contained in the auction notice require clarification/amendment. The first clause is that where it has been insisted that the bidder must have experience certificate of vehicle parking issued by competent authority. It is the contention of the petitioner that requirement of an experience certificate of vehicle parking will confine the bids only to those who have already done some work in relation to parking facilities and as a result many other competent persons, because of non-availability of such certificate, will not be able to participate in the auction and in consequence thereof there is likelihood that the amount of the bid to 2 be received may be less than what can be fetched, if the requirement of experience certificate of vehicle parking is not insisted. There can be no dispute that by insisting production of experience certificate of vehicle parking, competition has been restricted and, accordingly, there cannot be any dispute that there is likelihood that the bid amount to be received may be less. However, when a decision has been taken that the work of constructing the vehicle parking lot would be given to an experienced contractor, judicial review of that decision is not permissible inasmuch as such a view can be a possible view. 2. The other contention is that auction notice insisted for Income-tax Clearance Certificate in addition to Permanent Account Number (PAN). It was contended that in view of amendment of Section 230 of the Income-tax Act, as clarified by Income-tax Department, with effect from 1st January, 2003, there is no provision of obtaining Income-tax Clearance Certificate and, accordingly, no Income-tax Clearance Certificate can be required. It was contended that in such view of the matter, insistence on Income-tax Clearance Certificate would render the auction notice invalid as no one will be in a position to submit such Certificate. 3. Learned Chief Standing Counsel drew our attention to the words used in the auction notice and submitted that no Income- tax Clearance Certificate has been sought for; instead only Income- tax Certificate has been sought for. It was submitted that the object thereof was to ensure that the bidder is an income-tax assessee. We, accordingly, feel that it would be appropriate to clarify that insistence for Income-tax Clearance Certificate as mentioned in the auction notice is only to satisfy the Department, by such document as may be produced by the bidders, that the bidder is an income-tax assessee. It would be appropriate, if possible, to issue a corrigendum to that effect and, if not, to make the same known to all the bidders attending the bid on 28th June, 2011. 3 4. This disposes of the writ petition. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned Chief Standing Counsel, State of Uttarakhand. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 22.06.2011 22.06.2011 P. Singh