Disposed

M/S Jitendra Kumar Construction v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2022WRIC/24813/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner prayed to quash cancellation of parking contract due to invalid character certificate. Court found no illegality in cancellation as certificate was expired; however, directed proportionate refund of deposit worked for by petitioner based on respondent's undertaking. Disposition is effectively closed with direction for refund calculation.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to refund proportionate amount of security deposit deposited for the period of work executed, to be calculated and ordered within two weeks.

M/S Jitendra Kumar Construction Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24813 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Jitendra Kumar Construction Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jadu Nandan Yadav,Arimardan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Saurabh Tiwari,Tripathi B.G. Bhai

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Two counter affidavits and one supplementary affidavit filed today are taken on record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed, praying for quashing of the order dated 6.8.2022, passed by respondent no. 2, i.e. District Magistrate, Firozabad, cancelling the contract of parking pertaining to the year 2022 - 23 and directing Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Tundla to initiate fresh exercise for settlement of the contract by auction, so that it is held in a transparent manner, as per the stipulations in G.O. dated 25.8.2021.

¶7

The petitioner is a partnership firm. It was granted a contract of a vehicle parking stand, being the highest bidder in an auction. An agreement was executed in this behalf on 11.5.2022. One Lal Singh Sikawar, who has filed impleadment application and is heard as an intervenor, filed a complaint before the Authorities that the petitioner was not eligible, but its bid was wrongly accepted. Taking cognizance of the said complaint, an enquiry was held and in which, it transpired that the character certificate of Jitendra Kumar, one of the partners of the

¶8

petitioner-firm, filed by the petitioner for obtaining the contract, was not valid on the date of auction, having expired about 126 days back. Consequently, the contract was directed to be cancelled with further direction to re-advertise so that it is settled in a fair and transparent manner in favour of eligible person.

¶9

Respondent no. 2 has filed his personal affidavit in compliance of our order dated 5.9.2022 and wherein the same stand is taken, i.e. the character certificate was not valid on the date of auction.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said fact. He submitted that the petitioner had applied for grant of fresh character certificate/extension of the validity of the earlier certificate and the said application was pending.

¶11

Since however, it is not in dispute that on the date of auction, the character certificate was not valid, nor its validity was extended, therefore, we find no illegality in the impugned order. Additionally, the petitioner being a partnership firm, the character certificate of all the partners should have been filed, which admittedly was not done.

¶12

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Nagar Palika Parishad be directed to refund the contract amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the work order.

¶13

Sri Saurabh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner had worked for certain period and therefore, only proportionate amount will be refunded. He states that the amount to be refunded will be calculated and necessary order for refund will be issued within two weeks from today.

¶14

Having regard to the above statement, we dispose of the instant petition in terms of the statement made by Sri Saurabh Tiwari. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶15

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 19.10.2022 Jaideep/-

¶17

Digitally signed by JAIDEEP BANERJEE Date: 2022.10.21 15:06:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Jitendra Kumar Construction v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jitendra Kumar Construction v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siyaram Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Njd Cosmetics Private Limited Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Pilkhuwa Subji Mandi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S J.J.Fabtax Pvt.Ltd Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gajraj Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satish Kejriwal Vs State of U P and 10 Others