WPMB/192/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2002 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA


             WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 192 OF 2023


                             1st AUGUST, 2023

Between:

Swachh Sulabh Foundation                      ......          Petitioner


and


State of Uttarakhand & others                 ......         Respondents


Counsel for the petitioner        :    Mr. Vikas    Bahuguna,    learned
                                       counsel

Counsel for the respondents       :    Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh,
                                       learned     Additional    Advocate
                                       General for State of Uttarakhand /
                                       respondent Nos. 1 and 2

                                  :    Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel
                                       for respondent No. 3


The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)


             The    petitioner        has   preferred    the    present

petition, aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner's

technical bid, on the ground that the petitioner is a

financial defaulter firm.


2)           This allegation of the respondents is premised

on their stand that, while working the earlier contract,
                                  2




the petitioner had failed to deposit 30% of the collected

amount aggregating to Rs.7,27,313/-.                  On the other

hand, the case of the petitioner is that, under the

contract, the petitioner was required to collect garbage

from door-to-door, in the municipal area. Some of the

persons whose garbage has been collected, were not

paying user charges to the petitioner, and it was the

obligation of the respondent to enforce the payment of

such charges by the users. However, despite repeated

communications, the respondent did not take any steps

in this regard, and they kept on demanding money from

the petitioner, without fulfilling their obligation.


3)         We are of the view that the dispute raised by

the petitioner is purely a civil dispute, arising out of their

contractual relationship, which can appropriately be

adjudicated    in     civil   proceedings,      and   not   in   writ

proceedings.


4)         We, therefore, dismiss this petition with liberty

to the petitioner to invoke the civil remedy before the

appropriate court.


5)         We make it clear that, we have not examined

the merits of the case of either party.                  Since the

impugned      order     is    affecting   the   business    of   the
                            3




petitioner, the concerned court may examine any interim

prayer made by the petitioner on its own merits, on an

urgent basis.


6)        Interim Relief Application (IA No. 01 of 2023)

also stands disposed of.



                                    ________________
                                    VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.


                                _________________
                               ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 1st AUGUST, 2023 Negi