1 S/25 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11172/2010. Dharmendra Firoda Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. .. Date of Order :: 23rd December 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra, for the petitioner. <><><> BY THE COURT: The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the tender process adopted by the respondent No.5 – Gram Panchayat, Gwalu under the tender notice dated 03.11.2010. It is averred that the petitioner, carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Veer Teja Contractor/Construction & Suppliers at Gwalu, when was in the process of submitting his bid pursuant to the tender notice aforesaid with two demand drafts and was proceeding with one Nathu Ram for submitting the tender before the respondent No.5, the husband of the Sarpanch intercepted and snatched the envelopes and mobile phone from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur and submitted a report against the said husband of Sarpanch, who has forwarded the report to the Police Station Kuchera. 2 It is further averred that the tender filled up by the petitioner had been altered with overwriting where the rate was changed from 20% below the BSR rates to 20% above the BSR rates. It is also submitted that all such interpolations have been made in his tender so as to extend undue advantage to the husband of the Sarpanch, who is carrying on the business in the name and style of respondent No.6, M/s Sri Ram Construction Company. The petitioner has, inter alia, averred in the writ petition:- “8........ In this regard, it is submitted that there is a very different word in clause No. 7 of tender notification in respect of fulfillment of tender rate as 20% पतश BSR कम, whereby, it becomes absolutely clear that the husband of the Sarpanch of the respondent No.5 has acted in connivance with respondent No.5 for allotment the tender in the name of respondent No.6 by hook and by crook, as such, the husband of the respondent No.5 is running a business in the name and style of respondent No.6, thus, the respondent No.5 has not appreciated this important aspect of the case and issued the communication annexure 4.” While considering this matter in motion, when a pointed query was put as to whether the business in the name and style of respondent No.6 was being run by the husband of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat as averred, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to complete his instructions and hence, the matter was adjourned. The petitioner has now filed an additional affidavit stating that the business in the name and style of respondent No.6, M/s Sri 3 Ram Construction Company is being carried out by one Sita Ram, who is uncle's son of Sarpanch's husband and that the averments as appearing in the writ petition came to be made for bona fide mistake. The petitioner has, inter alia, stated in the additional affidavit thus: “3. That due to bonafide mistake, the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned in para No. 8 and ground No. B, C & E of the present writ petition that the husband of the respondent No.5 running a business in the name and style of M/s Sri Ram Construction Company, i.e., the respondent No.6. As a matter of fact, one Sita Ram son of Shri Srikishan Jat, who is uncle's son of Sarpanch's husband, is running a business in the name and style of respondent No.6, but the husband of the Sarpanch indirectly handled/acted in doing the business activities of the respondent No.6. 4. That in view of handling the business activities by the husband of Sarpanch of respondent No.5, it is submitted that the husband of Sarpanch has indirectly acted in doing the business activities to get the tender notification dated 3.11.2010 in connivance with the respondent No.5. 5. That the aforesaid mistake, which has mentioned in para No.8 and ground No. B, C & E of the present writ petition, is bonafide one and is liable to be condoned in the interest of Justice.” The entire writ petition is based essentially on the allegations that the husband of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is carrying on the business in the name and style of respondent No.6 to whom the work in question is sought to be awarded. The submissions now made in the additional affidavit project the case in a different manner with the 4 allegations that the husband of the Sarpanch is indirectly involved. In this state of record, apparent it is that the petitioner has not been forthright in his submissions in the writ petition; and there does not appear any reason to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Apart from the above, the averments as taken in the writ petition and in the additional affidavit essentially lead to several questions of facts in the matter of award of contract, which cannot be adjudicated and determined in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter is declined and the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. /Mohan/