Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34889 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ashfaq Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Pandey,Ambrish Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Ambrish Chandra Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Singh learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner challenges a notice dated 29 September 2018 inviting e-tenders for settlement of a vehicle parking contract.
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of Writ-C No. 33196 of 2018 which came to be disposed of on 03 October 2018 leaving it open to the petitioner to present a representation before the respondents in respect of his claim for renewal of the parking contract which he held and was valid up to 13 October 2018. This claim for renewal was based on Clause-50 of the contract dated 13 September 2017. It was on that context that this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the following observations:-
"Though we find that the petitioner cannot as of right claim renewal, it is always open to the concerned authorities to consider his application for seeking renewal as provided for in the clause. With this observation, we dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent/concerned authority to consider the petitioner's application dated 27.8.2018 for seeking renewal of the contract (Annexure 12), as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of fifteen days from today. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order alongwith copy of the writ petition and annexures before the concerned authority within three days from today.
It is made clear that we have not examined whether clause 50 would apply to the facts of the present case. It is open to the authorities to examine the case in accordance with law."
The challenge to the impugned notice is based on the contention that till such time as the claim of the petitioner for renewal is decided, no fresh tenders should have been invited.
We find ourselves unable to accept this submission since as was observed by us earlier, the petitioner had failed to establish an indefeasible right to claim renewal. While disposing of the earlier writ petition we had also observed that the issue of whether Clause-50 would apply, had not been examined. Today when the instant writ petition is taken up, we invited learned counsel for the petitioner to again address us on this issue. We are however constrained to note that learned counsel was unable to draw our attention to any material or clause in the agreement which may have necessarily mandated the contract being renewed in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid facts, we find no ground to sustain the challenge to the impugned notice. The writ petition is consequently dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.10.2018 faraz (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ.) (Yashwant Varma, J.)