1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2186/2009. : : Ajendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 15.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. R. N. Mathur for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Shri R. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that originally the contract for providing vehicles for Flying Squad of the respondent-RTO was awarded to the petitioner for the period from 22.12.2008 to 31.12.209. The contract of the petitioner was arbitrarily cancelled by order dated 2.9.2008, which order is separately challenged by him in another writ petition. It was submitted respondents have illegally granted the same contract to respondent No.3 on short term basis for three months and they floated fresh contract for regular award of the contract. In doing so, the respondents have flouted Rule 39 of GF & AR Rules. It is contended that according to the said rule, 2 tender was required to be published in one regional newspaper, which means a newspaper published in vernacular language and another in local newspaper. The respondents however with a view to deprive the petitioner published such notice in English newspapers i.e. “Times of India” and “D.N.A. The petitioner could not know about the same and, therefore, he could not submit his tender. There were in all three tenders received with other two tenders being ineligible contract was availed to respondent No.3 by default. It is contended that objection of requiring the publication of notice inviting tender in one regional newspaper is to ensure that it is made known to all those residing in that area and interested in the work. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record and also Rule 38 & 39 of GR&AR, I find that the said rules required that for the contract for valuation of Rs.5 lac to Rs.10 lac, publicity of tender shall be given by notice to all divisional and regional headquarters and publication thereof in one regional newspaper and two leading daily State level newspapers, which were having circulation of 50,000 copies and above. The respondents already published notice inviting tender in 3 two newspapers i.e. “Times of India” and “D.N.A.” and have awarded contract to respondent No.3. They have received in all three tenders. The petitioner was already in litigation with the respondents with regard to same contract, yet he did not submit his tender. The contract that was awarded to him that was cancelled due to non-satisfactory service, which is evident from the order dated 2.9.2008, but that controversy is pending consideration in another writ petition. In totality of the circumstances, it cannot be said that respondents did not publish the notice inviting tender in two leading newspapers i.e. Times of India” and “D.N.A.” and both are the local newspaper. I, therefore, do not find serious infraction of the rules, which may warrant interference by this Court. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.42.