IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1344 of 2011 (M/S) Krishna Ballabh S/o Shri Satya Narayan … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ..… Respondents Mr.Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Brief Holder are taken on record. A tender notice was issued by respondent No. 3, namely, by the Principal of Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Rajkiya Ayurvigyan Evam Shodh Sansthan, Srinagar (Garhwal) for supply of food at H.N.B. Base / Teaching Hospital, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal for a period of three years. One of the conditions mentioned in the tender notice was that the turnover of tenderer firm should be three crores as compared to last three years. This condition was in consonance with the terms an conditions floated by the State Govt. vide order dated 19th July, 2010. Pursuant to the said tender notice, it transpires that only one tender was given, namely, by the petitioner. Since only one tender form was received, the respondents took a decision on 23rd March, 2011 to cancel the said tender and notify a fresh tender inviting application again from the public. Accordingly, a fresh tender notice dated 21st May, 2011 was issued. In the tender notice, the turnover from Rs. three crores was reduced to Rs. one crore and the solvency certificate was reduced from Rs. one crore to Rs. 24 lacs. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the relaxation of these conditions, has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the tender notice dated 21st May, 2011. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tender notice dated 21st May, 2011 was in gross violation of the Procurement Rules issued by the Government on 19th July, 2010 and the condition to relax the turnover from Rs. three crores to Rs. one lac could not be done. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that no doubt the terms and conditions has been relaxed but this has been done not to give advantage to any particular party but was done in order to get maximum participation from the public. The respondents found that in the previous tender notice only the petitioner had given a bid and there was no other bidder. The respondents submitted that as per Clause 12 (2) of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008 there has to be at least three bidders before a bid could be finalised and since only one bid was received, the respondents took a decision to relax certain terms and conditions. This relaxation was done in order to get maximum participation from the public. In the opinion of the Court, the relaxation of the condition was neither arbitrary but was consciously taken by the respondents to get maximum participation from the public. There is nothing arbitrary or illegal in the action taken by the respondents. In certain set of circumstances, the Procurement Rules which are only handmaid of justice can be relaxed in a certain circumstances. In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the conditions imposed in the tender notice dated 21st May, 2011. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order dated 5th July, 2011 is vacated. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 20th September, 2011 Shiv