1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2777/2009. Surya Prakash Panwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 21st April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.K. Rathi, for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT: The petitioner, said to be a contractor with the respondent No.3 Churu Zila Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited for milk transportation through tankers, has filed this petition on 31.03.2009 seeking the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the writ petition may very kindly be accepted and by a suitable writ, order or direction the tender notice No.Churumool/Acctts./Tender/2008/1246-53 dated 28.05.2008 (Ann-6) be kindly ordered to be quashed and set aside; the respondents be directed to transport milk by and through the tanker of the petitioner and the transportation of milk by other tankers illegal and overloaded be stopped immediately with all consequential relief.” The reliefs aforesaid have been claimed by the petitioner with reference to the facts that he owns milk tankers and is engaged in the business of transportation of milk; that he quoted the rates in response to the Notice Inviting Tenders issued by the respondent No.3 for hiring the milk tankers for the period 01.12.2004 to 30.11.2005 that were accepted under the letter dated 29/30.11.2004 with the stipulation that 2 the contract could be extended further at the discretion of Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited ('RCDF') on the same rates, terms and conditions. The petitioner has averred in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that from time to time, the contract period has been extended from time to time, and the same is valid up to 02.06.2009. The averments as taken in paragraph 6 of the writ petition are reproduced verbatim hereunder:- “6- That the respondent no.3 after fulfilling all the terms and the conditions laid down in the tender by the petitioner time to time contract period 01.12.2004 to 30.11.2005 were extended. Which is valid up to 02.06.2009. The copy of letter dated 25.07.2008 No. Churumool/Lekha/2008/2266 and copy of Bank Guarantee letter No.082114 dated 5th August, 2008 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Branch Kotgate, Bikaner (Raj.) are submitting herewith and marked as Annexure-2 and 3.” The petitioner has, thereafter, averred that the RCDF had earlier granted milk transportation contracts in favour of other persons too; and has stated the relevant names and vehicle numbers. It has been averred that though the agreement in relation to the referred transporters expired after one year but there being a term in the agreement that the same could be extended by mutual consent, the others are continuing with transportation. It is stated that such transportation is being made exceeding the capacity of respective tankers and the respondent No.3 is making 3 payment to the said contractors for overloading beyond the capacity of the tankers; and no action is being taken on the complaints lodged to the Collector, Churu despite the fact that the Courts have directed against overloading of public carriers beyond the registered laden weight. The petitioner has placed on record the documents Annexures-4 & 5 to assert that the other transporter Shri Ramesh Kumar Poonia had been requested to transport milk by overloaded tankers up to the rest of the contract period. The petitioner has further averred that on 25.02.2009, upon visiting the office of the respondent No.3, he came to know of the fact that tenders had been invited for transportation of milk on annual rate under the tender notice dated 25.05.2008; and that the tenders were to be submitted up to 16.06.2008. While alleging that till the date no action has been taken on such notices, the petitioner has averred that his contract being in force and having not been rescinded or cancelled, there was no justification for inviting tenders for the period or part of the period of his contract; and the act of the respondent No.3 in inviting the tenders is void and illegal and even mala fide. The petitioner has further alleged that illegal overloading and transportation at higher rates has become a regular feature; and that his tanker is not given priority whereas the 4 tankers of undesired persons are being given priority for transportation of milk at a higher rate with overloading. The petitioner has also averred that as per the terms of settlement of dispute, the matter is to be referred to the Sole Arbitrator, i.e., the Managing Director of the respondent No.3 and it is suggested that the Managing Director of the respondent cannot be the Arbitrator so as to be a judge of his own cause. This writ petition was considered on 06.04.2009 and the Court granted time to the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce on record the order of extension, i.e., the order extending the term of his contract. The petitioner thereafter proceeded to submit a copy of the office order dated 31.12.2007 as issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the contract for milk transportation through private road milk tankers valid up to 31.12.2007 was extended up to finalisation of new tenders. Such office order dated 31.12.2007 reads as under:- “The rate contract for milk transportation through private road milk tankers valid up to 31.12.2007 is here by extended up to finalization of new tenders by Churu Milk Union as per previous tenders terms & condition.” A copy of the said order was, admittedly, endorsed to the petitioner. While making submissions in this matter, learned 5 counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order passed by this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3775/2008, decided on 08.12.208 and submitted that in any case, until the new tenders are opened and process is completed, the contract of the petitioner deserves to be continued as had been directions of this Court in the said case of Ramesh Kumar; and the respondents ought to extend the transportation work to the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the instant writ petition remains bereft of substance and does not merit admission. So far the fresh tender process is concerned, the notice inviting tenders had been issued as back as on 28.05.2008 and the tenders were invited by 16.06.2008. The cryptic suggestion as made in the writ petition that the petitioner came to know about the same only on 25.02.2009 does not inspire confidence nor there appears any reason that at the instance of the petitioner, the said tender process be interfered with. Even if the process under the said notice inviting tenders is yet to be finalised, there does not appear infringement of any legal right of the petitioner so as to consider any interference therewith. 6 The prayer for issuing directions to the respondents for assigning work to the petitioner as made during the course of arguments remains vague and uncertain. The petitioner has claimed the relief in the writ petition that the respondents be directed to assign the work to him in priority but has failed to show any legal right in that regard. Moreover, before seeking mandamus of such a nature, the petitioner has not even served a notice on the respondents. There appears no reason or basis to consider issuance of any mandamus in this petition. The decision in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra) has no relevance nor has any application to the present petition as framed and for the relief as claimed. Therein, this Court disposed of the writ petition with the directions to the respondent to allow the work of transportation as per the terms and conditions of the contract until the agreement exists and the petitioner was to provide vehicles as desired by the respondents. In the present case, it does not appear that the respondents have denied any of the legal rights of the petitioner. So far the suggestion about alleged overloading by other transporter Ramesh Kumar Poonia is concerned, the suggestion again remains cryptic and incomplete and cannot be gone into as the petitioner has consciously chosen not to 7 implead the said transporter a party to this writ petition. In fact, it is noticed that the petitioner has not even been forthright while filing the writ petition and did not even place on record the order dated 31.12.2007 in the first instance and filed the same only after the observations were made by the Court. The writ petition is founded on the averments as reproduced hereinbefore that allegedly the contract period of the petitioner was extended from time to time and now is valid up to 02.06.2009. This suggestion itself is incorrect. From the material now placed on record, it is apparent that it was not the contract period that was extended until 02.06.2009 but it was the Bank Guarantee that was renewed from 03.06.2008 to 02.06.2009. In any case, there does not appear any infringement of any legal right of the petitioner; and no case for issuance of any writ, order or direction is made out. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/