[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
3 January vs Principal Conservator Of Forest (Hoff) ... on 3 January, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:68-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/B) No.1120 of 2025
03 January, 2026
Shanu ---Petitioner
Versus
Principal Conservator of Forest (HoFF) and Others
--Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Gajendra
Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the following reliefs:
"(a). A writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorari mandamus directing the respondents to
consider the bid of the petitioner pursuant to tender
notice dated 08.12.2025 and declare the result as
per Uttarakhand Procurement Rules after considering
the petitioner and rates quoted by the petitioner
(Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).
(c) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(d) To award cost throughout to the petitioner."
2. According to the petitioner, he submitted bid
pursuant to tender notice issued by Field Director,
Corbett Tiger Reserve on 08.12.2025; rates quoted by
him for supply of buffalo meat were lowest yet contract
is not awarded to him and authorities are bend upon to
2026:UHC:68-DB
award contract in favour of respondent no.3, even
though his rate is much higher than quoted by
petitioner.
3. Learned State Counsel, on instructions,
submits that petitioner did not meet condition no.1 of
Clause 1.6 of the Tender Notice inasmuch as he was
not having an insulated refrigerated van and he failed
to submit the registration certificate of such vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
submits that, as per Clause 1.6, the registration
certificate of insulated refrigerated van has to be
supplied by the lowest bidder within ten days and the
work order would be issued only thereafter. Thus, he
submits that petitioner's bid cannot be rejected only on
the ground that he did not supply the registration
certificate of the transport vehicle along with his bid
and as per Clause 1.6 petitioner is entitled to at least
ten days' time for supplying the registration certificate
of the vehicle.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that the
petitioner also does not meet another condition of
tender document that he does not have a valid licence
for sale of buffalo meat.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner, however,
disputes the said submission and submits that the
petitioner was issued a licence by the competent
authority for sale of buffalo meat.
7. Learned State Counsel, on instructions,
submits that work order has not been issued as yet.
2026:UHC:68-DB
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, we think that ends of justice would be met
if petitioner is permitted to approach the Field Director
by making a representation.
9. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the
Filed Director within 24 hours. It shall be open to the
petitioner to submit such representation online. If the
representation is made within stipulated time, Field
Director shall take decision thereupon, as per law
within one week thereafter. Till the decision is taken on
the representation, work order shall not be issued to
any of the bidders.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
03.01.2026
SS
