The Court disposed of the writ petition noting that disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of an experience certificate are not suitable for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition stands finally disposed of as disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40363 of 2018
Petitioner :- M/S Tauraiha Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahabuddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shri Kant Shukla
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Letter dated 12.7.2018 filed today is taken taken on record.
This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following reliefs;
"(A) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned letter dated 14.11.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 (annexure No. 8 to this writ petition).
(B) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to consider the candidature for E- tendering ref. no. 277/E-Tender/Bilaspur, State-2/2018-19 dated 28.06.2018 (annexure no. 2 to this writ petition)."
A perusal of the record shows that an advertisement dated 28.6.2018 was issued by Respondent No. 3, District Manager, Food and Civil Supply Department inviting bids through E- tendering for handling and transportation of food grains. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner M/s Tauraiha Enterprises applied for the same. Along with the tender form, the petitioner has
submitted its Experience Certificate dated 22.5.2018 issued by Rampur Sahkari KrayVikray Samiti Ltd. Mistan Ganj, Rampur indicating that the petitioner is performing the work of handling and transporting for the last three years. The copy of the said experience certificate issued by Rampur Sahkari KrayVikray Samiti Ltd. Mistan Ganj, Rampur was sent to the aforesaid samiti for verification by the District Manager. In reply thereof, Secretary, Rampur Sahkari Kray-Vikray Samiti Ltd. informed that no such experience certificate was ever issued by it to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 3 issued a notice/letter dated 24.7.2018 informing the petitioner that samiti has informed that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner has not been issued by Rampur Sahkari Kray-Vikray Samiti Ltd., petitioner was further asked to submit his explanation in this regard within a week. Since the petitioner could not able to establish the genuineness of the experience certificate allegedly issued by the Rampur Sahkari Kray-Vikray Samiti Ltd., it was debarred from participating in the tender process.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the version as given by the Secretary, Rampur Sahkari Kray-Vikray Samiti Ltd. in pursuance to the letter dated 12.7.2018 of the District Manager, Food and Civil Supply Department is totally false and incorrect. Experience certificate filed by the petitioner is genuine as it has been issued by Rampur Sahkari Kray-Vikray Samiti Ltd. He further submitted that the genuineness of the signatures may be verified from a hand writing expert.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Be that as it may, disputed questions of fact are involved in the matter. Whether the experience certificate filed by the petitioner is forged or not; whether the petitioner, in fact, worked for the Samiti for three years cannot be decided by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum to establish his claim in accordance with law.
With this observation, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.12.2018 vinay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can decide disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of an experience certificate.
Whether the petitioner can establish his claim regarding the genuineness of the experience certificate before this Court.
M/S Tauraiha Enterprises
State Of U.P.
Shashi Kant Gupta
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
