HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 24579 of 2025 Court No. - 29 (SL No.8) HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akhileshwar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad. 2. The writ petition has been preferred inter alia for the following relief: "i Issue a writ of certiorari calling upon the records and to quash Condition No. 6-6 of the f the registration manual/booklet, prepared by Respondent No.2 that it is against the set principles and common features used by the corporation at large. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus, commanding the Respondent No. 2-to ease out such stringent conditions mentioned in Clause 6-6, it to an extent that for the solvency from the nationalized Bank,, is equally acceptable for registration & further bidding, so that justice may be done. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus, commanding the Respondent No. 2 to modify the term & conditions of the ongoing & upcoming tenders, to also accept Bank Guarente as a form of Performance and/or Additional Performance Security, the bank guarantee may also be included as one of the form of performance security, so that justice may be done." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Yadav, Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra Rakesh Kumar Vaish .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner precisely submits that Clause 6-6 may be relaxed to the extent of the demand of a Solvency Certificate only issued by the District Magistrate or by Competent Authority otherwise it would definitely prejudice the right of the petitioner in the normal parlance of the agreement. The Solvency Certificate is acceptable either issued by the District Magistrate or by the Nationalized Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case the Solvency Certificate is to be issued by the District Magistrate, the amount shall be stuck whereas if the Solvency Certificate is issued by the nationalized bank, the petitioner would always be in a position to utilize the amount. This would also prejudice the right of a small player in the market and the said provision is incorporated only to help the big contractors. Lastly, it is submitted that the Condition No. 6-6 is discriminating and also clearly violates the rights of any person or entity to do business at ease. 5. The relief is resisted by learned counsel for the respondents on two fold submissions. Firstly, the Clause 6-6 is not arbitrary inasmuch as it is always prerogative of the Authority to ask for the Solvency Certificate and in the instant matter the Authority had consciously made a provision of furnishing a Solvency Certificate issued by the District Magistrate. Secondly, the Awas Vikas Parishad is consistently following the same feature in previous contracts also. 6. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Parishad has also emphasized the provisions of 1-2 (iii) for ready reference the same is also reproduced herein. "1-2(iii) िनिवदा प्रपत्र की एक-एक प्रित सूचीबद्ध ठेके दारों को उनके अनुरोध पर एवं िनधार्िरत मूल्य का भुगतान करने पर िबना िकसी अिग्रम छानबीन के उपलब्ध कराई जाएगी। िनिवदा प्रपत्र की प्रित ऐसे असूचीबद्ध ठेके दारों, जो उसी ग्रुप के कायर् हेतु उसी श्रेणी िजसके िलए पिरषद् द्वारा िनिवदाएं आमंित्रत की जा रही हों, में लोग िनमार्ण िवभाग, उ.प्र. के न्द्रीय लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग, रेलवे, िवकास प्रािधकरणों अथवा नगर िनगमों आिद में पंजीकृ त हों, को िनधार्िरत मूल्य का भुगतान करने पर उिचत छानबीन के उपरान्त उपलब्ध कराई जा सकती है, परन्तु वे इस सुिवधा का लाभ अिधकार स्वरूप नहीं उठा सकें गे। ऐसे मामलों में िनिवदां प्रपत्र िनगर्त करने या ऐसी प्राथर्ना अस्वीकार करने का अिधकार पिरषद के पास सुरिक्षत रहेगा और WRIC No. 24579 of 2025 2 प्राथर्ना अस्वीकार करने के संबंध में सूचीबद्ध / असूचीबद्ध ठेके दार स्पष्टीकरण नहीं मांग सकता।" 7. In this backdrop, he submits that the rights of the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have been curtailed or prejudiced by the said provision. The provision is not at all arbitrary and it requires no interference under the writ jurisdiction. 8. Considering the factual situation and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised at bar, we have also carefully examined and perused the record as well as Clause 6-6 of Thekedar ki Suchibadhta hetu guide lines. We find that the object of inserting the Clause 6-6 is also given in detail. We are satisfied that the rights of the petitioner is not curtailed in any manner and accordingly, the same is not hit by Article 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. September 10, 2025 Shubham Arya WRIC No. 24579 of 2025 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad