JUDGMENT U.K. Dhaon, J.
1. Heard Mr. J.N. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D.K. Tripathi who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 8.7.2004 by which the tenders were invited for the remaining period of 2004-05 with respect to collection of fee for taxi parking in the area of Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur. The petitioner has alleged that through advertisement dated 30.6.2004, which was published in the daily newspaper 'Aaj' dated 2.7.2004, applications were invited for grant of Theka for the remaining period of 2004-05 and with respect to the said advertisement the petitioner submitted his tender on 8.7.2004. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that without cancelling the earlier tenders, the opposite parties on the intervention of the District Magistrate has invited fresh tenders by the Notification dated 8.7.2004 which was published on 13.7.2004 in the daily newspaper 'Hindusthan'. He further submits that in accordance with the Rules framed by the Nagar Palika Parishad only the Adhyaksha of the Nagar Palika is competent to invite tenders and approval can be granted only by the Board of the Nagar Palika.
3. Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties on the basis of the instruction submits that on the direction of the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, a decision was taken by the Adhyaksha and the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad on 8.7.2004 for having fresh tenders with respect to collection of fee for taxi parking for the remaining period of the year 2004-05 and pursuant to the said decision, Notification was published on 13.7.2004 and the last date for receiving the tenders was 14th July, 2004. He has also informed this Court that three lenders were received by the Nagar Palika Parishad with respect to the earlier Notification and three tenders were received with respect to the subsequent Notification.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. The record, which was produced before this Court reveals that the tenders, which were received with respect to the Notification dated 30.6.2004 were not cancelled by the Adhyaksha of the Nagar Palika Parishad and on the direction of the District Magistrate a joint decision was taken by the Adhyaksha and Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad for inviting fresh tenders for the remaining period of 2004-05. The Notification was published only on 13th July, 2004 and the date for submitting tenders was 14th July, 2004. We are of the view that the action of the opposite parties in inviting fresh tenders through Notification dated 8.7.2004 is legally not sustainable as the earlier tenders, which were received with respect to the Notification dated 30.6.2004 were not cancelled. The District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to interfere in the day-to-day functioning of the Nagar Palika Parishad and it is the Board and the Prescribed Authority who have the power to issue such direction to the Adhyuksha of the Nagar Palika Parishad. The impugned order dated 8.7.2004 is legally not sustainable.
6. In the result the writ petition succeeds and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 8.7.2004, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The tenders received in pursuance of the said Notification are of no consequence. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to open and finalise the tenders, which were received in pursuance of the Notification dated 30.6.2004, within seven days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.
7. The office is directed to issue a certified copy of the above judgment and order to the petitioner on payment of necessary charges within two days.