Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 164676 (ALL)

RAJA RAM SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. CANE DEPTT. LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIC/9106/2025 · 2025-09-16

Brij Raj Singh, Sangeeta Chandra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9106 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1,2 and 4 and Shri Jai Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 5. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer : "i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite party no.1 and 2 to constitute the committee headed by Cane Commissioner, Lucknow for fair enquiry and take decision accordingly, in the interest of justice." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.5 has invited bids from contractors/ transporters for carrying cane from cane centres to the Mills w.e.f. 16.7.2025 to 30.87.2025. The technical bid was opened on 30.7.2025 at 11.00 a.m. Several persons who have been found to be technically qualified in the bid in fact are not qualified and they do not fulfil the terms and conditions. 53 trucks were offered by the participants in the tender of which 16 trucks were defective. The bid submitted was for 21 cane centres for carrying to the Mill for which 53 vehicles were required. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harish Chandra, Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jai Prakash Mishra Raja Ram Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cane Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition as it is not the case of the petitioner that he has participated in the tender and his bid was technically rejected. The petitioner is only a cane grower and his concern is only with his cane being transported to the centre. 5. We find that the petitioner indeed has no locus to file this petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. September 16, 2025 Shukla WRIC No. 9106 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench