Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79705-DB Reserved on 13.05.2025 Delivered on 15.05.2025 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15080 of 2025 Petitioner :- Delhi Amusement Company Respondent :- State Of U.P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kavish Suhail Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Srivastava Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Srivastava has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 5, Nagar Nigam, Meerut. 2. The writ petition seeks the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing of the condition as given in notification in point no. 9, dated 27/04/2025 passed by Chief Engineer, Nagar Nigam Meerut, respondent no.5. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to make appropriate decision on the objections filed by the petitioner before declaring result of winner bidder as per law." 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an earlier tender was published on 16.04.2025. This tender notice was withdrawn/cancelled. A new tender notice was published on 27.04.2025. Petitioner is aggrieved by condition 9 of the tender notice which reads as follows:- “9. झूले के ठेके हेतु निदेशक, निद्युत सुरक्षा, निदेशालय उ०प्र० शास, लखऊ से निर्गत निद्युत ए- श्रेणी में पंजीकृ त ैध लाइसेन्स जो न्यूतम दो र्ष पुराा हो, की स्यं प्रमाणिणत छायाप्रतित संलग्न करी होर्गी। छायाप्रतित संलग्न होे की दशा निनिदा फम अपात्र माी जाएर्गी। निनिदादाता को उद्यम रजिजस्ट्रेश सर्टिटनिफके ट भी संलग्न करा होर्गा। र्गर निर्गम/जिजला प्रशास मेरठ के बकायेदार ाबालिलर्ग, पार्गल, निदालिलया अथा अन्य असक्षम व्यनि@ एं र्गर निर्गम के सदस्यों/अतिधकारी/कमचारिरयों के सर्गे संबंधी को ई-निनिदा में भार्ग लेे का अतिधकार हीं होर्गा। ठेके दार को इस आशय का शपथ पत्र निनिदा के साथ अपलोड करा होर्गा।" 4. The condition impugned, therefore, provides that for award of contract of 'swings' only contractors of Grade A, registered and licensed by Nideshak Vidyut Suraksha, Nideshalay, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow are eligible. 5. It is contended that this condition is discriminatory and is a restriction on the trade and right to equality. The swings are to be installed in Nauchandi Mela. 6. It is also the contention of petitioner that this condition has been incorporated to benefit persons close to the respondents with ulterior motive. 7. Additionally, it has been submitted that tenders were to be submitted within a period of five days and therefore, there was no reasonable time available to interested persons to procure a certificate from Lucknow as was the requirement under clause 9 of the tender notice. 8. The petitioner has also vehemently submitted that on a complaint made to the Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut, the said authority on 02.05.2025 has opined that the condition is restrictive. It has also been observed as to why a certificate issued by any competent authority cannot be accepted so as to comply with the condition in clause 9 of the tender notice. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ C No. 39170 of 2023 M/s Suddhtam Enterprises v. State of U.P. and 5 others, especially the penultimate paragraph thereof. 10. Upon perusal of the judgment cited, this Court finds that it had been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the instant case are clearly distinct and distinguishable. Therefore, petitioner cannot be afforded any benefit on the basis of the judgment cited. 11. On a pointed query by the Court as to the role of the Commissioner of the Division in a tender floated by the Nagar Nigam, Meerut, learned counsel for the petitioner has no reply apart from the submission that an application was filed before him as he was the highest administrative authority in the District. 12. From the perusal of the condition 9 whereby the petitioner is aggrieved, this Court finds that this condition ostensibly is for electrically operated swings. The Nauchandi Fair is an annual event which lasts almost a month and having large footfall. The condition that such swings be installed only by contractors who are registered and are Class A contractors is prima facie in public interest and therefore, the same cannot be said to be restrictive. 13. For the same reason, we do not find any merit in the writ petition which is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Aditya Tripathi 2 Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad