Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5878 (UTT)

RAM SINGH KUMATIA v. NAINITAL DUG UTPAPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED

WPMB/363/2026 · 2026-05-12

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3610-DB 1 I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 1 2 t h May, 2 0 2 6 W RI T PETI TI ON ( M/ B) No. 3 63 OF 2 0 2 6 Ram Singh Kumatia …….Petitioner Versus Nainital Dug Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Tanmay Tiwari, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents : Sri D.C.S. Rawat and Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. JUDGMENT : ( Per Sr i Man oj Ku m ar Gu pt a, C.J.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the work order dated 17.04.2026 issued by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 3 for collection and transportation of raw milk from Chhoi and adjoining places to milk depot at Bailparao First (Nayagaon). The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to grant contract in favour of the next lowest bidder. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the bid submitted by respondent No. 3 was non-responsive, inasmuch as he did not have the vehicle registered in his own name. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Condition No. 4 of the e-tender conditions, which reads as follows: - “4- okgu dk ekMy o”kZ 2015 ls de ugha gksuk pkfg;sA iSu dkMZ] vk/kkj dkMZ] okgu ds iathdj.k] chek] ijfeV ds oS| izi=ksa dh Lo izekf.kr Nk;kizfr rdfudh fcM ds lkFk viyksM djuk vfuok;Z gS 2026:UHC:3610-DB 2 vU;Fkk fufonk fujLr dj nh tk;sxhA okgu fufonknkrk ds uke iathd`r gksuk pkfg;sA vifjgk;Z ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gh ikoj vkQ vVkuhZ ekU; gksxhA” 3. It is urged that respondent No. 3 had relied on a power of attorney, but without disclosing any unavoidable circumstance for acceptance of the Power of Attorney. 4. Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, on basis of instructions, states that the bid of the petitioner was L-3 and, therefore, in any event, he would not get the contract. Therefore, this Court should decline to examine the challenge at the behest of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there were in all three bidders. The details thereof are as follows: Sl. No. Nam e of t h e Bidd er s Rat e qu ot ed ( I n Rs.) 1 Neeraj Adhikari (respondent No. 3 herein) (L1) 31.85 per kilometer 2 Inder Singh (L-2) 33.80 per kilometer 3 Ram Singh (petitioner herein) (L-3) 34 per kilometer 4 Kundan Singh (L-4) 40 Per Kilometer 5. It is submitted that the petitioner and other two bidders are real brothers. They have formed a cartel and ar e not permitting any other person to bid, or to get the contract, since last ten years. In these circumstances, the Department had accepted the Power of Attorney submitted by respondent No. 3 as his bid was the lowest. 2026:UHC:3610-DB 3 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner and other two unsuccessful bidders, apart from respondent No. 3, are real brothers. It is also not disputed before us that the bid of the petitioner was L-3, and L-2 has not come before this Court raising any challenge to the contract in question. The conditions of e-tender permit acceptance of Power of Attorney in certain circumstances. The Tender Evaluation Committee, having regard to the aforesaid relevant facts, had accepted the Power of Attorney submitted by respondent No. 3. 7. This Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot arrogate to itself the power of the Tender Evaluation Committee and decide whether in the given circumstances, the Power of Attorney should have been accepted or not. 8. In view of it, we decline to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 12th May, 2026 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb10 97d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B 8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.05.13 16:34:45 +05'30'