IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1111 of 2008 (MS) Raghubar Deen Dayal S/o late Goverdhan R/o Joon Estate, Bheemtal, District Nainital. …………….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, Uttarakhand Dehradun. 2. Regional Food Controller, Kumaun Region, Haldwani, District Nainital. 3. Smt. Shaluwalia W/o Narendra Singh R/o Kusumkhera, Haldwani. 4. Babaji Cargo C/o Parvez Siddhiqi R/o Ujala Nagar, Haldwani. ………….. Respondents Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal and Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocates for respn. No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the engagement of respondents No.3 and 4 as contractors, by respondent No. 2 for transportation of food grains. A further mandamus has been sought commanding the respondents No. 1 and 2 to finalise the tender proceedings strictly in accordance with Government Order No. 966 / XIX / 2005 dated 18.06.2005. 3) The Government Order dated 18.06.2005 is annexed as Annexure –1 to the writ petition. Perusal of the Government Order clearly shows that said order has been issued by the Government of Uttarakhand for local transportation of the food grains that is why the word ‘ local District Magistrates’ has been used while fixing the rates of transportation of the food grains. Copy of the tender notice dated 28.04.2008 issued by respondent No. 2, inviting tenders of the contractors for transportation of the food grains is annexed as Annexure –2 to the writ petition. There are two categories of the contractors mentioned in the advertisement. One relating to the local transport (HTC) contractors, and other relating to TC Contractors, who have to transport the food grains from various centers like Kichha, Sitarganj, Khatima, Tanakpur, Rudrapur, Gadarpur, Kashipur and Jaspur (expect local transportation) to regional godowns of Kumaon. 4) Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 pointed out that his bid has been accepted in respect of the second category i.e. non local transporters, and as such, plea of the petitioner that the respondents have been given contracts in violation of the Government Order dated 18.06.2005, is untenable. 5) Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 i.e. Regional Food Controller, Kumaon Region, Haldwani also corroborates the fact that the Government Order No. 966 / XIX / 2005 dated 18.06.2005, is not applicable for appointing regular handling and transport contractors (the category to which respondents No. 3 and 4 belong). It has further been stated in Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 that the aforesaid Government Order applies only to purchase food grains under decentralized scheme and not to the appointment of contractors for transportation of the food grains under public distribution system from one place to another place of the State. 6) In the above circumstances after going through the Government Order relied by the petitioner and the advertisement in response to which respondents No. 3 and 4 submitted their tenders, this Court finds that tenders of the respondent No. 3, since do not pertain to local transportation, as such, are not covered by the Government Order dated 18th of June 2005. 7) Therefore, this writ petition has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 11, 2008. H. Negi