1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5497/2010 Narpat Khan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 13.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr Rohitash Singh, for the petitioner/s. ... The petitioner was having milk transportation contract with respondent Jalore-Sirohi Zila Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. for the year 2009-2010. After expiry of the term aforesaid, the respondent Jalore-Sirohi Zila Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. issued a notice inviting tender dated 14.4.2010, wherein the contractors having vehicle Tata 407 / Pick Up were eligible to be considered for grant of milk transportation contract for Sarneshwar Route. Due to non-finalization of the tenders the term of contract of the petitioner was extended for a period of three months as an interim measure. The respondent milk federation issued a separate notice inviting tender dated 27.5.2010 for grant of milk transportation contract for certain routes including Sarneshwar milk procurement route. In the notice inviting tenders dated 27.5.2010, the eligibility for Sarneshwar milk procurement route was kept confined to the 2 persons having Tata 407 vehicle. While challenging the eligibility aforesaid the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that non-inclusion of Pick Up vehicle for milk transportation is not only unjust but is in violation of fundamental right of the petitioner as prescribed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. I have considered the argument advanced which, as a matter of fact, is fundamentally misconceived. From perusal of the notice inviting tender dated 14.4.2010 it is apparent that the vehicle Tata 407 was required to have capacity to carry milk weighing 3 tones whereas Pick Up Vehicle was required to carry the milk weighing 1.5 tones. The milk federation in its own discretion and domain considered it appropriate to have vehicles those can carry 3 tones milk and for that purpose Vehicle Tata 407 was found appropriate. It is the need of respondent-milk federation, that is prescribed as eligibility to have the milk transportation contract, and as such, any change in it in no way affects any fundamental right of the petitioner as alleged. If the petitioner is not competent to satisfy the need of the respondent being not having a vehicle Tata 407 3 with the capacity to carry 3 tones of milk and then certainly he is not eligible to be considered for grant of contract. No arbitrariness or favouritism, as alleged, in not including Pick Up vehicle with a capacity to carry 1.5 tones of milk in the eligibility for grant of milk transportation contract is established. In view of whatever discussed above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '