Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22641 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S R K Enterprises And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Tiwari,Dharmendra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Mani Shukla
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pranav Ojha, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
The petitioners' claim that the petitioner No.1 is a firm of A-Class contractors and that petitioner No.2 is its proprietor. They are duly registered with the centralised system of the State Government for the purposes of participating in e-tenders.
The petitioners by means of this writ petition are challenging condition No.-6 of the tender notice dated 25.06.2019 issued by the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam.
It is alleged that when central registration for e-tendering is compulsory, the Nagar Nigam cannot require registration of the contractors departmentally.
The central registration for the purposes of e-tendering is one part which is mandatory at the same time registration with the department may also be required as it is not prohibited or contravenes the requirement of centralised registration system.
In case any person, who is not centrally registered, is granted contract or its tender is accepted, the same can be challenged in the appropriate forum by the person aggrieved.
The challenge to the said condition for participation of other contractors on the ground that they are not centrally registered is premature as it may be possible that their tender may be rejected on this very ground.
As far as the grievance of the petitioners that respondents No. 6 and 7 are manipulating the work of tenders of the Nagar Nigam and that in some previous complaints investigation was done and a charge sheet has been submitted against them is not sufficient at this stage to restrain them from discharging their duties.
The petitioners if so aggrieved may make a complaint against them before the appropriate authority or respondent No.2 which will be looked into by the said authority in accordance with law most expeditiously.
The application of the petitioners, if any, pending before the respondent No.4 for departmental registration may be considered most expeditiously if possible within one month from the date of copy of this order is produced.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 piyush