SPA/46/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 283 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                    AT NAINITAL
          ON THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
                         BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.


            SPECIAL APPEAL NO.46 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Sharma Engineers, a sole proprietorship firm having

its office at 7/22/1 Premnagar, Dehradun, though its

sole proprietor Mr. Rituraj Chaturvedi S/o Kate R.V.

Chaturvedi, R/o7/22/1 Prem Nagar, Dehradun -

248007.

                                           .......Appellant

(By Sri Shikhar Kacker, Advocate.)


AND :

1.   State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary

(Energy),    Government        of    Uttarakhand,     Civil

Secretariat, Dehradun.

2.   Managing      Director,        Uttarakhand     Power

Corporation Ltd., VCV Gabar Singh Urja Bhawan,

Dehradun.

3.   Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution

Circle (Rural) Dehradun, 18, EC Road, Dehradun.

4.   Ved Security and House Keeping Services Pvt.

Ltd,. having its office at 1st Floor, 1531, HBC, Sector -

14, Sonipat, Haryana.

                                       .......Respondents
 (Sri J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.)


This special appeal coming on for hearing this day
Hon'ble    Shri     Justice    Sharad   Kumar       Sharma,    J.
delivered the following Order:
                              ORDER

The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the impugned work order of 09.12.2020, as has been granted to the private respondent no.4, on the premise that the same was accepted in violation of the scheduled rates, which a contractor was suppose to offer as referred in annexure no.1, as well as by the Rule 20 of the Procurement Rules of Government of Uttarakhand, 2017; to be read with the General Financial Rules of 2005, as applicable to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India.

2. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the award of the contract in favour of the private respondent No.4; is in violation of clause "Jhha" of Rule 20 of the Procurement Rules and particularly he has also referred that the non-compliance of the aforesaid clause and the grounds was also a question which was put to challenge by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, by formulation of ground 'C' as taken in the writ petition. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the impugned Judgment, on 31.12.2020, on the ground that execution of a contract inter se between the employer and respondent no.4 the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved as being a stranger to the contract. It was also held that the appellant cannot be said to be an

aggrieved person because he was the stranger to contract. Though it has been argued by the learned counsel that since he was also one of the bidder, his right would be prejudice because of the grant of award of the work to respondent no.4. He submits that even in the findings recorded in the para no.7 that has not been taken into consideration in the light of the ground 'C' which has taken in his writ petition.

3. Admit the appeal.

4. Issue notice to the private respondent no.4.

5. List before the regular Division Bench after winter vacation.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma) Vacation Judge

Sanjay