25 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2296/2005 Jeevan Prakash Paliwal Vs. RTADCF Ltd. & Ors. Date of Order :: 18th September 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Nikhil Dungawat for Mr.P.S.Bhati,for the petitioner. Mr.B.P.Bohra, for the respondent .... This writ petition came to be filed on 16.04.2005 in relation to the proceedings for awarding of a contract for transportation of food grains under the tender notice as issued by the respondent No.1 on 25.02.2005 (Annexure-1) wherein the petitioner had been one of the bidders. The petitioner averred in this writ petition that there had been want of transparency on the part of the respondents in such tender process; that the tenders were to be opened on 16.03.2005 but it was decided by the respondents that the matter was required to be postponed for ‘there were certain irregularities and uncertainty pertaining to the orders from the Government’; that thereafter, taking an about-turn, the respondents opened the tenders on 19.03.2005 but then, withheld the final outcome of the process as there were doubts regarding the whole procedure. The petitioner pointed out that the concerned Minister also issued the directions that the 1 matter was required to be investigated in detail and appropriate steps was required to be taken to avoid any irregularity and illegality. The petitioner stated the apprehension that there had been gross irregularities and illegalities; and stated the grievance that though the matter was being investigated but the respondents were not responding to his repeated pleas that everything pertaining to the procedure and investigation may be made public so as to clear the doubtful situation. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in this writ petition:- “A/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give complete and elaborate details of the proceedings in pursuance of the tender notice dated 25.2.2005 (Annex-1) being under taken by the respondents. B/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to divulged the ambit and scope of any investigation or enquiry which is being conducted by the respondents in light to the charges of irregularities and illegalities in the whole process. C/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the completion of the process in accordance with the rules and regulations as initiated vide tender notice dated 25.2.2005 (Annex-1). D/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. E/ Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2 Show cause notices were ordered to be issued in this writ petition on 20.04.2005. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 on one hand, and respondent No.4 on the other, have filed separate replies. The respondents have pointed out, inter alia, that the tenders in question were opened on 19.03.2005, work order was issued to the lowest bidder on 16.04.2005, and the work had commenced on 18.04.2005. While admitting that earlier, the process of opening of the tenders was postponed upon the instructions issued by the concerned Minister the respondents have, however, averred that there had not been any irregularity and the basis of issuance of such instructions had been a representation made by the Contractor for the previous year 2004-2005 who approached the Hon'ble Minister seeking recommendation for extension of his contract period. It has also been pointed out that ultimately upon clearance of the matter, the tenders were opened and the comparative statement was prepared in relation to the rates received; that the contract was awarded to person who had offered the lowest rates; and that the petitioner's rates had been higher than that of the successful bidder. It has been indicated that the previous contractor made all attempts to have his contract period extended and the respondents have alleged that the present petition has been on the motivation of the previous 3 contractor and is lacking in bonafide. Learned counsel for the petitioner though frankly submitted that the contract having been awarded and its term being over, of course, other part of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition has become infructuous but then asserted that the relief as claimed in respect of the requisite enquiry to bring about the real state of affairs and for probe into the illegalities and irregularities remains. Learned counsel referred to the fact situation of the case and submitted that likelihood of irregularities was a fact very much known to the respondents and that is why the tender process was stopped earlier but thereafter, without adopting any reasonable procedure and without divulging the outcome of investigation, the contract was awarded to one of the bidders. Learned counsel contended that the rates received in response to the tender notice were too much on the lower side and submitted that even when investigation had been under contemplation on the aspect that much lower rates were likely to lead to corruption, the contract was yet awarded on the rates lower than that offered by the petitioner. The submissions so made do not lead to any ground to maintain this writ petition nor any case is made out even in relation to the vague and uncertain relief regarding ‘divulging of ambit and scope of investigation’ as claimed in this writ 4 petition. The petition is founded on mere suppositions and assumptions that there was likelihood of some irregularities and on some inferences vaguely drawn by the petitioner whether on the basis of certain instructions issued by the authorities that led to postponement of finalisation of the tender proceedings or with reference to some allegation made by some person that the offered rates were on the lower side. This writ petition by the unsuccessful bidder in a contractual matter remains vague and indefinite; is bereft of even a basis wherefor the petitioner seeks the aforesaid relief; and is totally devoid of the grounds requisite for invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni 5