[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Gopal Adhikari vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 25 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
25TH MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 191 OF 2026
Gopal Adhikari ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned
Standing Counsel.
Counsel for Respondent Nos.6 to 9 : Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, learned counsel.
ORDER:
(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. The present case is a glaring example of how the
State officials, in collusion with the private respondents, are
trying to defraud the public exchequer. The matter relates
to transportation of goods from railhead Ramnagar to
various Foodgrain Depots in District Almora.
2. Writ Petition (M/B) No.502 of 2025 came to be
filed before this Court by one M/s Arun Kumar HUF
(respondent no.4) challenging certain conditions of the
tender notice issued by the District Supply Officer, Almora
for next three years for transport of goods to various
Foodgrain depots. During course of hearing of the said
petition, it transpired that even the lowest bid was higher
by 80-90% than the rates of previous financial year, i.e.
2023-24. A Co-ordinate Bench, taking notice of the said
aspect, stayed the work orders. Subsequently, the Court
taking notice of the fact that the distribution of goods to the
depots was to maintain the supply chain, permitted the
respondents to engage vehicles who were willing to
transport goods at the rate which would not be more than
10% above the rates for the previous two years, i.e. 2023-
24 and 2024-25. The said arrangement was permitted to
be continued till final orders are passed in the writ petition.
3. The Court, in the order dated 22.07.2025, apart
from making the said interim arrangement, also noted the
fact that as per the own affidavit filed in the said writ
petition by respondent no.3, the rates at 15 centres, out of
20, were more than 50% of the previous years. The Court
observed that the same is in no manner justified in light of
the fact that there had been no increase of taxes or fuel
price in last two years.
4. Mohd. Tabbar, in whose favour work order was
issued on 21.06.2025 in respect of transport of goods to
one of the depots and which was subject matter of scrutiny
in the writ petition, did not agree to work at 10% enhanced
rate. On the other hand, M/s Arun Kumar HUF, the
petitioner in the previous writ petition, agreed to transport
the goods at 10% enhanced rate of the previous year.
Accordingly, the said arrangement continued while the writ
petition was pending.
5. It is not clear that what transpired between the
parties, but the petitioner M/s Arun Kumar HUF filed an
application in the pending writ petition for withdrawal of the
same and the said application was allowed by this Court on
03.01.2026. It further appears that as soon as the writ
petition was got dismissed as withdrawn, the private
respondent Mohd. Tabbar made claim to work on basis of
the work order issued in his favour and which was subject
matter of scrutiny in the writ petition filed by M/s Arun
Kumar HUF. The District Supply Officer, without
appreciating the fact that while the matter remained
pending before this Court, the petitioner M/s Arun Kumar
HUF itself carried out work at 10% enhanced rate, sought
legal opinion from DGC Almora for taking work from Mohd.
Tabbar.
6. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner highlighting the afore-said facts and challenging
the order dated 14.01.2026, whereby the District Supply
Officer has approved the transportation of goods at the
enhanced rates approved in the past by the District
Magistrate. During the course of hearing of the writ
petition, learned counsel for private respondents states that
the order dated 14.01.2026 has been withdrawn. He has
placed, for our perusal, the order dated 20th March, 2026,
which takes notice of the impugned communication dated
14.01.2026 and then refers to the opinion by DGC, Almora,
dated 16th March, 2026 and relying upon which, once again
the District Supply Officer has approved the contract in
favour of private respondent no.4 for transportation of
goods at enhanced rates for next three financial years.
7. The interesting fact to be noted is that when this
Court, in the previous writ petition, took cognizance of the
fact that the rates approved for next three years are highly
inflated and permitted transportation of goods by any party
willing to transport the same at the rate which would only
by 10% more than the previous year's rate, the petitioner
of the previous writ petition agreed himself to transport the
goods at only 10% enhanced rates. The State-
respondents, even after the withdrawal of the writ petition,
being custodian of public exchequer and public interest,
should have gone for fresh tender instead of reviving the
work orders, which were under cloud.
8. The mere fact that the previous writ petition was
withdrawn does not, in any manner, go to show that
enhanced rates approved in the past had any co-relation
with the actual expenses. The observations made by this
Court, in its previous order dated 22.07.2025, that in last
two years, there was not much increase in fuel prices, while
the taxes have remained the same, should have been duly
taken note of by respondent no.3 while examining the
question as to whether the previous contract should be
restored or fresh bids should be invited.
9. It is also interesting to note that in the
communication dated 14.01.2026, the name of M/s Arun
Kumar HUF also figures for transportation of goods to
godown Bhatrojkhan at enhanced rate of Rs.130/-, while he
himself agreed to work @ Rs.85.53/- in pursuance of the
order dated 22.07.2025, passed in his own writ petition
bearing Writ Petition (M/B) No.502 of 2025.
10. Evidently, M/s Arun Kumar HUF got the writ
petition withdrawn to himself also avail the benefit of the
enhanced rate. Thereby, the petitioner of the previous writ
petition, the other private respondents, and the District
Supply Officer have acted in unison in ensuring that the
enhanced rates become application, irrespective of public
interest and the dent it would make to the public exchequer.
11. Having regard to the afore-said peculiar facts
and circumstances of the instant writ petition, we require
respondent no.1 to institute an inquiry in the matter and
take appropriate action as may be warranted under law.
12. The other respondents shall also file their
affidavit(s).
13. Issue notice to respondent nos.4 and 5,
returnable at an early date.
14. Steps shall be taken within a week.
15. List on 22.04.2026.
16. Till the next date of listing, the effect and
operation of the recommendation, as contained in the
communication dated 14.01.2026 and any action taken in
pursuance thereof, shall remain in abeyance. Meanwhile,
the arrangement, under which, transportation of goods was
being made in the past, may be permitted to continue so
that the supply chain is not disturbed.
17. Respondent no.1 shall file his affidavit and
disclose the action taken by him in pursuance of the instant
order.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dated: 25th March, 2026
NISHANT
