IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1045 of 2005 (M/B) 1. M/S Shri Balaji Agency, Jain Market, Railway Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun Through its Proprietor Ajay Gupta 2. M/s Narendra Swroop Mittal & Sons 32,Lakhibagh, Dehradun, District Dehradun. 3. M/s Electronic Hut, Main Road, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, District Dehradun through its partner S.K.Gupta …Petitioners Versus 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi through its Chief Managing Director. 2. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Uttaranchal Telecom Circle, Windlass Complex, Rajpur, Dehradun. …Respondents ………… Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Mr. V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate for respondent no. 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C. J. Hon. M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel for the respondents. On due consideration, Impleadment Application No. 12096 of 2005 dated 19.12.2005 is allowed and M/s Aggarwal Traders, Opposite Old 2 Telephone Exchange, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun is allowed to be impleaded as respondent no. 3 in the writ petition. They are heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition for the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quashing the process of selection of franchiseship; for franchise area D-4, S.S.A., Rishikesh, Dehradun, for which the tenders were opened by the respondent authorities on 15.03.2005. ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to initiate the fresh process of selection of franchiseship for franchise are D-4, S.S.A., Rishsikesh, Dehradun with transparent policy. iii. pass any other and further orders, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. award the cost of writ petition to the petitioners.” 3. The petitioners’ entire claim is based on the plea that the validity period of the tender bids submitted by the petitioners and other tenderers was of 150 days and the same expired on 14.08.2005. 4. Along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of first and second respondents, letter written by first petitioner M/s Shri Balaji Agency has been filed as Annexure C.A-4 with the following contents: “To The ADT (Sales) B.S.N.L., Dehradun Kind Atten: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, ADT Subject: Tender for Franchiseship in Franchise Area IV in Dehradun Dear Sir, Kindly refer your Letter No. UAL/MKT. 51-17 Franchise Policy/04-05 Dt. 5.9 . 1. In this context, we beg to say that we are extending the validity of tender bid upto 15.11.2005. 2. The PBG submitted earlier as EMD which is going to be expired on 15.09.2005 is hereby extended valid by the bank upto 3 15.12.2005 as desired by you. The extended PBG is on Rs. 100/- Stamp Paper. Thanks. Yours faithfully, Sd/- illigible Encl. PBG Extension. Seal : For Shree Balaji Agency Proprietor” 4. From the petition we gather that the first petitioner M/s Balaji Agency has deliberately suppressed the fact of sending the above letter whereby the first petitioner himself has extended the validity of his tender bid upto 15.11.2005. 5. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and are guilty of withholding the material documents. 6. In this view of the matter, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 23.02.2006 A