Uttarakhand High Court
Gopal Adhikari vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 25 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
25TH MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 191 OF 2026
Gopal Adhikari ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned
Standing Counsel.
Counsel for Respondent Nos.6 to 9 : Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, learned counsel.
ORDER:(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. The present case is a glaring example of how the State officials, in collusion with the private respondents, are trying to defraud the public exchequer. The matter relates to transportation of goods from railhead Ramnagar to various Foodgrain Depots in District Almora.
2. Writ Petition (M/B) No.502 of 2025 came to be filed before this Court by one M/s Arun Kumar HUF (respondent no.4) challenging certain conditions of the tender notice issued by the District Supply Officer, Almora for next three years for transport of goods to various Foodgrain depots. During course of hearing of the said petition, it transpired that even the lowest bid was higher by 80-90% than the rates of previous financial year, i.e. 2023-24. A Co-ordinate Bench, taking notice of the said 1 aspect, stayed the work orders. Subsequently, the Court taking notice of the fact that the distribution of goods to the depots was to maintain the supply chain, permitted the respondents to engage vehicles who were willing to transport goods at the rate which would not be more than 10% above the rates for the previous two years, i.e. 2023- 24 and 2024-25. The said arrangement was permitted to be continued till final orders are passed in the writ petition.
3. The Court, in the order dated 22.07.2025, apart from making the said interim arrangement, also noted the fact that as per the own affidavit filed in the said writ petition by respondent no.3, the rates at 15 centres, out of 20, were more than 50% of the previous years. The Court observed that the same is in no manner justified in light of the fact that there had been no increase of taxes or fuel price in last two years.
4. Mohd. Tabbar, in whose favour work order was issued on 21.06.2025 in respect of transport of goods to one of the depots and which was subject matter of scrutiny in the writ petition, did not agree to work at 10% enhanced rate. On the other hand, M/s Arun Kumar HUF, the petitioner in the previous writ petition, agreed to transport the goods at 10% enhanced rate of the previous year. Accordingly, the said arrangement continued while the writ 2 petition was pending.
5. It is not clear that what transpired between the parties, but the petitioner M/s Arun Kumar HUF filed an application in the pending writ petition for withdrawal of the same and the said application was allowed by this Court on 03.01.2026. It further appears that as soon as the writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn, the private respondent Mohd. Tabbar made claim to work on basis of the work order issued in his favour and which was subject matter of scrutiny in the writ petition filed by M/s Arun Kumar HUF. The District Supply Officer, without appreciating the fact that while the matter remained pending before this Court, the petitioner M/s Arun Kumar HUF itself carried out work at 10% enhanced rate, sought legal opinion from DGC Almora for taking work from Mohd. Tabbar.
6. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner highlighting the afore-said facts and challenging the order dated 14.01.2026, whereby the District Supply Officer has approved the transportation of goods at the enhanced rates approved in the past by the District Magistrate. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel for private respondents states that the order dated 14.01.2026 has been withdrawn. He has 3 placed, for our perusal, the order dated 20th March, 2026, which takes notice of the impugned communication dated 14.01.2026 and then refers to the opinion by DGC, Almora, dated 16th March, 2026 and relying upon which, once again the District Supply Officer has approved the contract in favour of private respondent no.4 for transportation of goods at enhanced rates for next three financial years.
7. The interesting fact to be noted is that when this Court, in the previous writ petition, took cognizance of the fact that the rates approved for next three years are highly inflated and permitted transportation of goods by any party willing to transport the same at the rate which would only by 10% more than the previous year's rate, the petitioner of the previous writ petition agreed himself to transport the goods at only 10% enhanced rates. The State- respondents, even after the withdrawal of the writ petition, being custodian of public exchequer and public interest, should have gone for fresh tender instead of reviving the work orders, which were under cloud.
8. The mere fact that the previous writ petition was withdrawn does not, in any manner, go to show that enhanced rates approved in the past had any co-relation with the actual expenses. The observations made by this Court, in its previous order dated 22.07.2025, that in last 4 two years, there was not much increase in fuel prices, while the taxes have remained the same, should have been duly taken note of by respondent no.3 while examining the question as to whether the previous contract should be restored or fresh bids should be invited.
9. It is also interesting to note that in the communication dated 14.01.2026, the name of M/s Arun Kumar HUF also figures for transportation of goods to godown Bhatrojkhan at enhanced rate of Rs.130/-, while he himself agreed to work @ Rs.85.53/- in pursuance of the order dated 22.07.2025, passed in his own writ petition bearing Writ Petition (M/B) No.502 of 2025.
10. Evidently, M/s Arun Kumar HUF got the writ petition withdrawn to himself also avail the benefit of the enhanced rate. Thereby, the petitioner of the previous writ petition, the other private respondents, and the District Supply Officer have acted in unison in ensuring that the enhanced rates become application, irrespective of public interest and the dent it would make to the public exchequer.
11. Having regard to the afore-said peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant writ petition, we require respondent no.1 to institute an inquiry in the matter and take appropriate action as may be warranted under law. 5
12. The other respondents shall also file their affidavit(s).
13. Issue notice to respondent nos.4 and 5, returnable at an early date.
14. Steps shall be taken within a week.
15. List on 22.04.2026.
16. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the recommendation, as contained in the communication dated 14.01.2026 and any action taken in pursuance thereof, shall remain in abeyance. Meanwhile, the arrangement, under which, transportation of goods was being made in the past, may be permitted to continue so that the supply chain is not disturbed.
17. Respondent no.1 shall file his affidavit and disclose the action taken by him in pursuance of the instant order.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dated: 25th March, 2026 NISHANT 6