Allahabad High Court
M/S Ashish Kumar Pathak vs U.P. Power Corporation Lko. And ... on 14 December, 2012
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Het Singh Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 65298 of 2012
Petitioner :- M/S Ashish Kumar Pathak
Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Lko. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Pavitra Kumar Pathak
Respondent Counsel :- Mahmood Ahmad
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Notification dated 7.12.2012 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) issued by the respondent no.3.
From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it appears that on 4.12.2008 under an Agreement before the petitioner and the respondent no.3, franchise was granted in favour of the petitioner for the works mentioned in the said Agreement.
The said Agreement was for a period of 2 years. The said Agreement was renewed by an Agreement dated 4.12.2010 for a further period of 2 years. The said period of 2 years has now expired.
It appears that the petitioner applied for a fresh renewal of his Agreement, on which the Director (Technical), Purvnachal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. sent a Communication dated 5.12.2012 to the Superintendending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, Varanasi for taking appropriate action in accordance with the rules considering the performance of the franchisee.
However, in the mean-time, it appears that Purvnachal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. decided to invite fresh tenders/applications for grant of franchise. The Tender Notice is annexed as Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition. According to the Tender Notice, tenders were to be submitted by 7th December, 2012, and the same were to be opened on 7th December, 2012.
However, by the Notice dated 7.12.2012 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition), date for submission of Tenders and opening thereof was extended to 14.12.2012.
Shri Rajeev Mishra, holding brief for Shri P.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has also applied pursuant to the said Tender Notice.
As per the Notice dated 7.12.2012 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition), tenders submitted by various persons are to be opened on 14.12.2012 i.e. today.
We have heard Shri Rajeev Mishra, holding brief for Shri P.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
From the narration of the facts above, it is evident that the period of franchise agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.3, has expired on 3rd December, 2012.
Purvnachal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. in its wisdom has decided to invite fresh tenders, and that has been done by issuing Tender Notice (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition).
No illegality has been shown in the action of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. in issuing Tender Notice inviting fresh tenders/applications for grant of franchise.
It is noteworthy that the petitioner himself has submitted an Application pursuant to the said Tender Notice.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein before, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.12.2012
Ajeet...
