RAMAKANT PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/5943/2025 · 2025-07-24
Manish Kumar, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 146835 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 146835 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42511-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5943 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramakant Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Urban Development Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sharad Dwivedi Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
" Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the cancellation order of tender notice dated 19.03.2025 which was finalized at third scheduled time on 11.04.2025 and was approved by the Board in its Minutest of Meeting dated 02.06.2025, if any, after summoning the same. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Tender Notice dated 10.06.2025 issued by the opposite party no. 3 published in daily hindi news paper namely Hindustan on 12.06.202 contained as Annexure No. 1 to this Writ petition. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite parties specifically opposite parties no. 3 and 4 to issue the work order in favour of the petitioner in furtherance of finalized bid dated 11.04.2025 and approved by the Board on 02.06.2025 contained as Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition forthwith."
3. In an auction held for settlement of rights for running a taxi stand by the Nagar Palika Parishad Tanda, the petitioner came up to be the highest bidder. The bid was approved by the Board of Nagar Palika on 02.06.2025 but instead of executing the contract in favour of the petitioner or issuing the work order as the case may be, an inquiry was got conducted by the District Magistrate to the Additional
District
Magistrate,
Finance
and Revenue/Incharge of sub-local bodies, Ambedkar Nagar, wherein it was found that the bid of the petitioner was less than the reserved/government bid. Accordingly, the District Magistrate took a decision on 03.06.2025 for issuance of a fresh tender notice, meaning thereby that he impliedly cancelled the earlier tender in which the petitioner was the highest bidder and his bid was approved by the Board. This decision is mentioned in the communication of the A.D.M, Finance and Revenue dated 04.06.2025, which is annexed as Annexure no. C.A-1 to the counter affidavit.
The question arose during the argument as to whether the District Magistrate had any authority under the statute i.e.
Municipalities Act, 1916, to take such decision. 4. Reliance was placed by Shri Sharad Dwivedi initially on Section 34(1-A) of the Act, 1916. However, on being confronted with the conditions mentioned therein, which apparently do not apply in the case at hand and are not the reasons for cancellation of the earlier tender notice and initiation of fresh tender notice nor could counsel for Nagar Palika show that it was so. He could not satisfy us that the provision was applicable. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner cited judgment of this court dated 04.10.2010, rendered in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 49106 of 2010, wherein this very issue was considered and it was held that the District Magistrate did not have power to take such decision for cancellation of the tender process or the initiation of fresh tender process under Section 34. 6. We have perused the said provision and find that, if at all, there is a cause, it is the State Government which could step in and take such decision as it deems fit under Section 34(1-B) of the Act, 1916. The impugned decision being without jurisdiction, we allow the writ petition and quash the decision of the District Magistrate dated 03.06.2025 referred in the communication of the A.D.M, Finance and Revenue dated 04.06.2025, as also the latter communication and the initiation of such fresh tender process. It shall be open for the Nagar Palika, if there is no legal impediment, to issue work order to the petitioner or take such decision as may be permissible in law. Let this be done within two weeks. 7. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 8. Learned Standing Counsel shall communicate our order to the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar as well as opposite party no. 1.
(Manish Kumar, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 24.7.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench