[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Ram Krishna Jayara vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 26 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1315-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
26th February, 2026
Writ Petition (M/B) No.534 of 2024
M/s Ram Krishna Jayara ------Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -----Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Shri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent no.1.
Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.
2, 3 & 4.
JUDGMENT:
(per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. Heard Shri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Shri B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Shailendra Singh
Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.
2. Petitioner is a registered partnership firm
comprising of five partners, namely, Shri Khushal Singh
Jayara, Shri Manmohan Singh Jayara, Shri Kuldeep Jayara,
Shri Kailash Jayara and Shri Deeepak Jayara. On
24.06.2017, a power of attorney was executed in favour of
Kuldeep Jayara by other four partners and thereunder
authority was given to the donee, i.e., Kuldeep Jayara to
2026:UHC:1315-DB
participate in any tender matter on behalf of the firm vide
Clause 4 of the Power of Attorney. On 02.03.2024
respondent no.2 issued a notice inviting tender and it also
includes a work relating to construction of a road under
Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna. The petitioner-firm
through Shri Kuldeep Jayara acting for himself and as
power of attorney holder of the other four partners
submitted a bid on behalf of the firm. The bid of the firm
has been rejected in the technical round by stating as
follows:
"Power of attorney is submitted without
signature of Kuldeep Jayara."
3. The petitioner firm through its partner Kuldeep
Jayara being aggrieved by the rejection of its bid on
technical ground has filed the present writ petition for the
following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari,
calling for the original record and pleased to quash the
impugned technical bid rejection order dated 07.11.2024
(Annexure-2) passed by the respondent no.3 through its Bid
Accepting Authority against the petitioner and declare him as
successful bidder in Part-1 Technical bid round in respect to the
tender inviting notice (NIT) No. 37/2023-24 dated 02.03.2024
pertains to the work order mentioned at serial no. 98 { MRL-
17---- Delhi Yumnortri Road to Kandari MR (BC with waste
plastic) XXIII/2023-24 Batch-1, Package No. - UT-13-10}.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing and commanding the respondents to the extent that
firstly they shall declare the petitioner as successful
candidate/tenderer at technical stage-I and include his name in
2026:UHC:1315-DB
the list of successful bidders at technical State-1 and then
proceed with the financial bid proceeding (financial Stage-II) in
respect to the tender inviting notice (NIT) No. 37/2023-24
dated 02.03.2024 and thereafter award the work contract in
favour of the lowest bidder in respect to the tender inviting
notice dated 02.03.2024 pertains to work order mentioned at
serial no. 4 pertains to the work order mentioned at serial no.
98 {MRL-17----Delhi Yumunotri Road to Kandari MR (BC with
based plastic) , XXIII/2023-24 Batch-1, Package No. - UT-13-
10}."
4. This Court while entertaining the writ petition
passed an interim order restraining the respondents from
taking any further steps in pursuance of the tender notice.
It is admitted to the parties that on account of the interim
order, the financial bid has not been opened.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Power of Attorney does not require signature of the
donee. Consequently, the rejection of the technical bid on
the ground that the Power of Attorney does not bear the
signatures of Kuldeep Jayara, the donee, is wholly illegal. In
support of the submissions, he has placed reliance on the
definition of Power of Attorney in Section 1-A and Section 2
of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 has placed reliance on
Clause 4.3(c) of the Standard Bidding Document in
contending that the Power of Attorney without signatures of
all the partners was invalid.
2026:UHC:1315-DB
7. We have considered the rival submissions and
perused the material available on record.
8. Section 1-A defines Power of Attorney to include
any instrument empowering a specified person to act for
and in the name of the person executing it. It reads as
follows:
"[1-A. Definition.- In this Act, "Powers-of-Attorney" include any
instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the
name of the person executing it.]"
9. The definition is an inclusive definition and it
clearly indicates that a Power of Attorney is a unilateral
document executed by person(s) who wishes to appoint
another person as his / their agent.
10. Section 2 of the Act reads as follows:
"2. Execution under power-of-attorney.--The donee of a
power-of-attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any
instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and
his own seal, where sealing is required, by authority of the donor
of the power; and every instrument and thing so executed and
done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or
done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the
signature and seal, of the donor thereof.
This section applies to powers-of-attorney created by
instruments executed either before or after this Act comes into
force."
2026:UHC:1315-DB
11. The Power of Attorney executed by any person
authorizes the donee of a power of attorney to execute or
do any instrument or thing in and with his own name and
signature and his own seal where sealing is required by the
authority of the donor of the power and every instrument
and thing so executed in turn shall be as effectual in law as
if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power
in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor
thereof.
12. Thus, the donor of power of attorney is
competent to act on behalf of the donors and any act done
by him is deemed to be an act done by the donor.
13. As Power of Attorney is a unilateral act by any
specified person and does not require signature of the
donee, therefore, the bid submitted by Kuldeep Jayara
acting for himself and on behalf of the other four partners
was wrongly rejected on the ground that the power of
attorney does not bear his own signatures.
14. Reliance placed by learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 to 4 on Clause 4.3 is wholly misplaced.
The said clause governs bids filed by Joint Ventures, by not
more than three firms, as partners. Under Clause (c), lead
partner was required to nominate a partner-in-charge, and
his authorization, as such, was to be evidenced by
2026:UHC:1315-DB
submitting a power of attorney, signed by the legally
authorized signatories of all the partners. The said clause
does not apply, as the bid was not by a Joint Venture, but
by a partnership firm.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The respondents are directed to include the bid of
the petitioner-firm in the financial round and proceed, in
accordance with law.
16. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 25.02.2026
Kaushal
