HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1153 of 2010 (M/S) Dhirendra Singh .…Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ...Respondents Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Lohani, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 5. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure 14 to the petition) and impugned order dated 24.06.2010 (Annexure 16) passed by respondent no.5 and respondent no.3 respectively. ii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to order the ordinary buses of Dehradun Region[Dehradun Hill Depot, Dehradun Rural Depot, Rishikesh Depot, Haridwar Depot] to stop at the restaurant of the petitioner as they used to, as per the contract dated 18.12.2007. iii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice. iv. Allow the writ petition with cost.” 2 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the respondent no.2 published an advertisement in the Newspaper regarding contract to the interested parties for providing meals, snacks etc. to the passengers of ordinary buses of Dehradun region of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation) moving on Delhi- Haridwar-Dehradun National Highway. Petitioner applied for the same and was granted contract to provide meals, snacks to the passengers, drivers and contractors of the buses vide contract dated 18.12.2007 executed between respondent no.5 and petitioner. Various terms and conditions were mentioned in the contract i.e. regarding the provisions of amenities, maintenance of register, provision of free meals to the conductor and driver and for displaying rates of the edible items, complaint box, halt/stoppage of buses, its time duration, inspection of site, extension of contract, disposal of complaints, termination of contract etc. In compliance of the contract petitioner deposited a draft of Rs.50,000/- to Deputy General Manager (Finance) as security. Initially as per the Clause 9 of the contract dated 18.12.2007 three months trial period was granted to the petitioner in which it was provided that if any complaint is made against the petitioner, the security deposited by the petitioner would be confiscated and the contract would be liable for rejection. But if service is found satisfactory, the contract period would be valid for a period of three years including that interim period of three months. But inspite of this contract various buses which were registered to stop at the petitioner’s restaurant did not 3 stop at petitioner’s restaurant which forced the petitioner to make written complaint to respondent no.5. But respondent no.5 failed to take action against such buses and being annoyed on the compliant of the petitioner issued a letter/notice dated 08.05.2008 complaining lack of parking space, lack of passenger facilities, poor quality of food and charging double rates of food. On 13.05.2008 petitioner submitted his explanation to the notice dated 08.05.2008. Again on 16.05.2008 respondent no.5 issued a notice to the petitioner with the contentions that sudden inspection was done by the Regional Manager, Dehradun alongwith associates alleging that cleanliness of the Restaurant was not satisfactory and Restaurant had parking space of only 8-9 buses and was further alleged that no water was being supplied to the passengers and quality of food was not satisfactory. By this notice petitioner was asked to show cause. The petitioner replied the same on 22.05.2008. But respondent no.5, without considering the explanation/reply of the petitioner issued office order dated 26.05.2008 whereby the stoppage of buses at the restaurant of the petitioner was cancelled. The respondent no.5 also asked the petitioner to make arrangement of parking for 100 buses. On 26.02.2010 respondent no.4 again issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on the basis of some alleged sudden inspection. Petitioner replied the show cause notice on 06.03.2010. Thereafter, on 07.06.2010 respondent no.4 passed an order by which agreement dated 18.12.2007 was cancelled. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner moved a representation against the order of respondent no.4 before respondent no.2 but same 4 was rejected on 24.06.2010. Aggrieved by the said order present petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while considering the representation of the petitioner, the Managing Director utterly failed to consider the Clause 10 of the agreement which provides that contract can be terminated only when petitioner is penalized for more than three times. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Counsel submitted that earlier the petitioner was given show cause four times and penalty of Rs.1000/- was also imposed on petitioner once, therefore, the condition no.10 of the agreement was fully satisfied. 6. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to file fresh representation before the Managing Director of the Corporation within a period of one week and Managing Director of the Corporation may be directed to decide the same within stipulated time. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also agreed for the same. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in the interest of justice, it is just and proper that petitioner be given an opportunity to place his case before the Managing Director of the Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner is 5 permitted to file fresh representation before the Managing Director of the Corporation on or before 21.08.2010. In case representation is filed in time, the Managing Director of the Corporation shall decide the same within a period of ten days from the date of filing of representation. In the event of rejection of representation, the order passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation shall be a reasoned order. 8. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. Stay application no.5387 of 2010 as well as Misc. application 6463 of 2010 also stand disposed of. (V.K.Bist. J,) 11.08.2010 Arti 6