JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
1. Udai Kumar Verma, the petitioner before us, has filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs:
"(a) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities especially the Respondent kno.2 to act fairly and consider the tender auction after giving tender notice in two well known widely circulated news-papers,
(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi Respondent No. 2 to provide the tender form to the petitioner before finalizing the tender/auction in question.
(c) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon 'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(d) to award costs of this writ; petition to the petitioner against the contesting respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that tenders are being floated by the respondents-Authorities,in breach of earlier a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11059 of 1999 (Santosh Kumar v. The Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi and Anr.) (Copy filed as Annexure '6' to the writ petition), which reads:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of direction of this Court the respondents has not advertised the auction in well known newspapers having wide circulation and they had only published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 14.2.99. The respondents are directed to advertise the tender notice in at least two newspaper having wide circulation namely one 'Aaj' and another in 'Dainik Jagran' only then the tender should be invited in accordance with law.
Petition is finally disposed of."
3. Petitioner contends that tender notices (for executing certain work ))were not published in news papers having wide circulation in the State, namely 'Dainik Jagran' and 'Aaj'; in stead the same were published in local news papers (which do not have wide circulation) e.g. 'Janvarta,and Swatantra Moreha'.
4. Writ petition was filed in the year 2002 after notice to the respondents through Chief Standing Counsel in November 2002. No counter affidavit was filed despite time granted by the Court vide order dated 16.11.2002. Respondents-authorities did not take up the matter seriously as they failed to file counter affidavit.
5. This Court passed an order on 4.3.2005, which is self-explanatory. For ready reference it is reproduced below:
"Admit, Issue notice.
All the respondents are represented by Standing counsel who was granted time under Court order dated 16.11.2002 to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. A supplementary affidavit was also filed alter serving its copy in the office of Chief Standing Counsel on 29.11.2004. There is no supplementary counter affidavit to the said supplementary affidavit.
Learned Standing Counsel however, prays for further time to file counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. As a last opportunity, we grant six weeks and no more to file counter affidavit subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- as cost which may be paid before the next date fixed. Rejoinder Affidavit/Supplementary Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three weeks of the receipt of the counter/supplementary counter affidavit, if any.
Stay application shall be listed immediately on expiry of ten weeks.
In the facts of the present case we propose to pass an interim order.
According to the petitioner, respondent authorities (particularly respondent No. 2) has been abusing his office and powers by not inviting tenders by publication in two newspapers having wide circulation namely 'Aaj' and 'Dainik Jagran' as directed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.3.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11059 of 1999 (Santosh Kumar v. The Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi and Anr.); copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition. For ready reference aforesaid order is reproduced below:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of direction of this Court the respondents has not advertised the auction in well known newspapers having wide circulation and they had only published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 14.2.99.
The respondents are directed to advertise the tender notice in at least two newspaper having wide circulation namely one 'Aaj' and another in 'Dainik Jagran' only then the tender should be invited in accordance with law."
Perusal of the letter of The Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi, addressed to the Director Information and Public Relation, U.P. dated 26.2.2002 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) shows that request was made to publish tender notice in 'Janvarta' and 'Swatantra kMorcha', local daily newspapers. The said request made by respondent No. 2 is in breach of the directions given by the Court as noted above.
Apart from the above, petitioner pleads vide Supplementary affidavit that several letters were written to respondent No. 2 to inform him as to when tender notice published and on what date but the same has been withheld. On the contrary, we find that agreement executed way back in the year 2000-2001 and onward has been extended on the ground that tender could not be finalized for publication. It appears that an attempt is being made to circumvent the directions of this Court as well as some of the Government Orders (reference may be made to the orders dated 11.2.1999, 5.3.2002, 4.1.2003) all filed collectively as Annexure 4 to the Supplementary affidavit.
Annexure 7 to the Supplementary Affidavit shows that contract with reference to certain firms (who were given contract on the basis of the tenders published two or three years back) has been extended by means of the order of Chief Medical Officer dated 16.11.2004. Record, particularly petitioner's letter dated 11.6.2004 (part of Annexure 3 to the Supplementary affidavit) shows that tenders are invited for twelve months from the period 1st April to 31 March of following year.
In view of the above, it is provided that respondent will not extend period of contract which will come to an end on 31.3.2005. Further respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to advertise the tender notice in at least two daily newspapers having wide circulation (as earlier directed by this Court in'Aaj' and 'Dainik Jagran'). It is open to the respondents to advertise in any other newspapers; in addition to above two newspapers, if they so like. Process must be started within three days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order for which we direct the Learned Standing Counsel to communicate within three days from today.
Apart from the above, we further issue an interim mandamus to the present incumbent of the office of Respondent no, 2 as well as the Director General Medical Health / respondent No. l to file their separate Counter affidavit (giving parawise reply) duly sworn by the said officers personally after making due inquiry and on the basis of the record before them within the time stipulated above. Respondent No. 2 shall be present before this Court on the next date fixed to explain as to why counter affidavit was not filed earlier even though couple of years have elapsed and further as to why Division Bench direction to publish tender notice in particular two newspapers has not been complied with.
List on 13.5.2005."
6. Subsequently this Court passed order dated 27th May, 2005, which reads:
"Sri V.P.N.Singh, present incumbent on the post of Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi is present and identified by Sri Veer Singh. Advocate.
Learned counsel points out that in spite of Court's clear order for filing counter affidavit personally the Chief Medical Officer has not filed any counter affidavit. The Court takes serious view of the same.
History of the case shows that respondent-authorities are taking the matter lightly. This court would like to make it clear that this would not be tolerated. Partawise counter affidavit may now be filed within three days from today or Chief Medical Officer should be prepared for facing contempt proceedings.
Meanwhile, we restrain the respondents from granting contract in question reg. Repair of building and supply etc. to Government hospitals and no payment shall be made to any of the Contractor till the next date of listing, if need be this Court may direct for high power enquiry in the past contracts as well. List this case on 12th July 2005."
7. It may be noted that Court order was not initially complied inasmuch as the then Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi in as much as the counter-affidavit filed on his behalf (C.M.O.Varanasi) was sworn by the then Deputy Chief Medical Officer /Dr. M.N. Misra. In our opinion, public money and court time were put to reckless wastage. Court expects the public servants (concerned officers) and the Standing Counsel (who drafted