Allahabad High Court
M/S Santusthi Real Infra Private Ltd. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 11 April, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20544-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3035 of 2025
Petitioner :- M/S Santusthi Real Infra Private Ltd. Thru.Director,Swatantra Vijay Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Anubhag-2 And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Verma,Sharad Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mukesh Kumar Tewari
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that similar matter bearing Writ-C No.2939 of 2025 [M/S Santusthi Real Infra Private vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] pertaining to District-Banda has been disposed of on 02.04.2025 in the following terms:-
"1. Heard Shri Sharad Pathak and Shri Ashish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi has produced instructions dated 29.03.2025 sent by Special Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, which are taken on record.
3. We have perused the said order. We categorically asked Shri Tripathi as to what is meant by the recitals contained in paragraph 7, whereupon he informed that the impugned tender process shall not be finalized, rather fresh tender process would be initiated, however, in the interregnum till this happens the existing contractors/ institutions who have been given the job of transportation of minerals, their contracts would be extended till initiation and finalization of fresh tender in the light of the Government Order dated 11.01.2016.
4. He further informs us that the new tender process would be in terms of the statutory bye-laws. As regards the anomalies mentioned in our earlier order, he submitted that it was on account of tender conditions which now would be issued afresh intune with the statutory bye-laws. The impugned order is veritably rendered otiose.
5. Nothing survives for adjudication.
6. Principal Secretary has filed an affidavit regretting the issuance of impugned order dated 21.03.2025. He expresses his apology for issuing the order dated 21.03.2025, which is apparently in the teeth of the earlier orders of this Court and also the earlier orders passed in this writ petition.
7. We accept this apology, however, subject to the condition that in future the Officer shall ensure compliance of the orders of the High Court strictly.
8. We had asked the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Anubhag-2, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to join the proceedings through video conferencing, but he has not been able to join. Every day we find that when we ask the Officers to join the proceedings through video conferencing, it is informed that due to some technical glitch, he is unable to join. The High Court technician informs that there is no error on our side. Even our screen shows that the Officer has muted himself on his side. In future we will take care to provide that in case the Officer is unable to join the proceedings through video conferencing, then he will have to appear in person so as to prevent any deliberate avoidance or misuse of the facility because such a situation seems to be occuring almost on every occasion where the officers have to join the proceedings through video conferencing.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of."
3. Prayer has been made for disposing of this writ petition also on the same terms.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has no objections.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 11.4.2025
Shanu/-
