THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 22 of 2010. Galaxy Advertisers through its Prop. Rishi Sachdeva, R/O 7 Yog Asharam Devpura Haridwar . … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary, Tourism, Dehradun. 2. Mela Adhikari Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, 3. Prachar Advertisers & P.R. Company through its Proprietor Sri Sikandar Yadva S/O Sri Ratan Singh Yadav, R/O 111-B-52 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad (U.P.). …Respondents. Mr. V.K.Kohli Senior Advocate with Mr. A.Vashist and Mr. H.M.Bhatia, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 2. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.S.Patni, Mr. Mohit Maulekhi and Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. (2) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 49 of 2010. Mudra Advertising Agency, 247-A Degree College Road, Govindpuri Haridwar through its Partner Sri Shailendra Singh Rawat, S/O Late Shri Ranjeet Singh Rawat, lR/O 247-A Degree College Road, Govindpuri Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary, Tourism, Dehradun. 2. Mela Adhikari Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, 3. Prachar Advertisers & P.R. Company through its Proprietor Sri Sikandar Yadav S/O Sri Ratan Singh Yadav, R/O 111-B-52 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad (U.P.). …Respondents. Mr. A.Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 2. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.S.Patni, Mr. Mohit Maulekhi and Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. (3) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 86 of 2010. M/s A.V.Advertising, 1 Dehradun Road, Rishikesh, Dehradun through its Proprietor Shri Mahendra Khanna. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary, Tourism, 2. Mela Adhikari Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, 3. Prachar Advertisers & P.R. Company through its Proprietor Sri Sikandar Yadva S/O Sri Ratan Singh Yadav, R/O 111-B-52 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad (U.P.). …Respondents. Mr. A.Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 2. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.S.Patni, Mr. Mohit Maulekhi and Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2 (4) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 87 of 2010. A&A (Art & Advertising) Opposite Alka Placed Near Shankar Ashram, Jwalapur, Haridwar, through its Proprietor Shri Ashish Kumar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Tourism, Dehradun. 2. Mela Adhikari Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, 3. Prachar Advertisers & P.R. Company through its Proprietor Sri Sikandar Yadva S/O Sri Ratan Singh Yadav, R/O 111-B-52 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad (U.P.). …Respondents. Mr. A.Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 2. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.S.Patni, Mr. Mohit Maulekhi and Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. (5) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 88 of 2010. M/s Harit Advertising, House No. 648 Avas Vikas Colony, Jwalapur Haridwar, Uttarakhand, through its Proprietor Harit Sahney. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Tourism, Dehradun. 2. Mela Adhikari Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, 3. Prachar Advertisers & P.R. Company through its Proprietor Sri Sikandar Yadva S/O Sri Ratan Singh Yadav, R/O 111-B-52 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad (U.P.). …Respondents. Mr. A.Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 2. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.S.Patni, Mr. Mohit Maulekhi and Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. (6) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 89 of 2010. Alfa Advertisers Head Office-JG-79, Ganga Nagar, Meerut, through Shri Vipin Kumar, S/O Shri Devendra Singh, R/O House No. 50 Garden Enclave Hapur Road, Ghaziabad. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Tourism, Dehradun. 2. Mela Adhikari Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, 3. Prachar Advertisers & P.R. Company through its Proprietor Sri Sikandar Yadva S/O Sri Ratan Singh Yadav, R/O 111-B-52 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad (U.P.). …Respondents. Mr. B.C.Pande, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 2. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.S.Patni, Mr. Mohit Maulekhi and Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Date February 10, 2010. 3 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Since the controversy involved in all these six petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being heard together. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the counter affidavits have already been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 in the first two writ petitions, i.e. WPMS No. 22 of 2010 and WPMS No. 49 of 2010 and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in the former case also. Since the controversy to be resolved in all these writ petitions is similar and the writ petitions have been filed in respect of same tender of Category A, therefore, the counter affidavits of these two petitions as also the supplementary counter affidavit may be read in other four petitions also. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 also submitted that the counter affidavit filed in WPMS No. 22 of 2010 may be read in all other writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners also urged that the reply/rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner in WPMS No. 22 of 2010 may be treated to be same in all the petitions. Learned counsel for the parties made a request that all the six petitions may be disposed of at the admission stage since it is an urgent matter. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the tender process dated 26-12-2009 started by respondent no.2 for awarding tender of rights to advertise, by placing hoardings and structures etc. on the electricity poles etc. within Haridwar during Kumbh Mela and further 4 sought for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to award the work to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, respondent no. 2 invited tenders for awarding the hoardings in Kumbh Mela area within Haridwar by tender notice which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petitions. The petitioners wanted to submit their offers and procured tender documents and also completed all other formalities and prepared requisite bank drafts. The petitioners or their proprietors reached on the spot for applying tender but they were restrained by respondent no.3 in collusion with other respondents. The writ petitions have been filed for category ‘A’ only. To show his bona fide, the petitioner of WPMS 22 of 2010 has prepared a Bank Draft on 8-1- 2010, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition. The next contention of the petitioners is that only one bid which was given by the respondent no.3 for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs only, has been accepted by the respondent no.2 and participation of only one person in the tender process for category A tenders is against the settled principles. According to the respondent-State, the procedure has been adopted by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with the Rules framed to that effect and counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed. In support of their contention, the petitioners have relied upon the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008 framed by the Government. It is urged that Rule 59(2)(x) of the said Rules is applicable in the present case, which inter alia provides that “The Department/Competent Authority shall allow enough time for the consultants to prepare their proposals. The time allowed shall depend on the assignment, but normally shall not be less than three weeks or more than three months.” 5 Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3. During the course of arguments, an offer of Rs. 55 lacs ( Rs. Fifty-five lacs) for category A tender was made by the petitioner in W.P.M.S. No. 22 of 2010 Galaxy Advertisers Vs. State of Uttarakhand and two others, for the remaining period, while an offer of Rs. 50 lacs was made by Alfa Advertisers, the petitioner in WPMS 89 of 2010. No bid for Category A tender was given for more than Rs. 55 lacs before this Court by any other petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3, Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, has stated at the Bar that he has no objection in grant of the tender in favour of the petitioner Galaxy Advertisers for the amount of Rs. 55 lacs for the remaining period, provided the amount already deposited by the respondent no. 3 pursuant to the tender notice is returned to it. Since the period under the tender notice is running day-to- day and the period of tender of Kumbh Mela is upto 30th April, 2010, therefore, in the interest of the State, it is directed that the petitioner Galaxy Advertisers shall deposit 25% of the total offered bid of Rs. 55 lacs, which comes to Rs. 13,75,000/-, before the respondent no.2-Mela Adhikari, Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, latest by Monday, i.e. 15-2-2010. Further, second instalment of 25% of the offered amount i.e. Rs. 13,75,000/- shall be deposited by the Galaxy Advertisers by 5-3-2010. The third instalment of 25% of the offered amount i.e. Rs. 13,75,000/- shall be deposited by 25-3-2010 and the last instalment of 25% shall be deposited by the said petitioner by 10-4-2010 before the respondent no.2. If the petitioner Galaxy Advertisers deposits the amount of Rs. 13,75,000 i.e. 25% of the offered bid of Rs. 55 lacs by 15th February 2010 for the tender of Category A, the petitioner should be 6 allowed to work (Award of advertising rights in Kumbh Mela 2010) in Category A. In case of default, the respondent no.2 shall proceed to cancel the licence agreement. Accordingly by the consent of private parties, the earlier acceptance of tender in favour of respondent no.3 shall be treated as cancelled on deposit of amount of Rs. 13,75,000/- by Galaxy Advertisers by 15-2-2010 and it is directed that the amount deposited by the respondent no.3 pursuant to the tender notice for Category A shall be refunded by the respondent no.2. With the above observation and directions, all the six writ petitions are disposed of finally. Certified copy of this order be issued today to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 7