Shyam Gramodyog Sansthan and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

The petitioner-1 in this case is a registered society. The respondent-3 issued an advertisement inviting tender for running an old age home at District Kasganj. The petitioner's institution offered to provide its services for running the old age home at District Kasganj for 50 old aged persons and such offer of the petitioner's institution was accepted by the respondent -2 vide letter dated 27.03.2017. The petitioner was awarded the contract by the respondent -2.

¶13

The petitioner started running the old age home immediately after the contract came into existence between the petitioner and respondent-2. It is also the case of the petitioner that they are running the old age home strictly in accordance with the norms and guidelines and orders of the Government. The contract between respondent -2 and the petitioner was renewed for a period of one year after the expiry of the original contract from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 vide renewal agreement dated 01.04.2023. Thereafter again, on the basis of recommendation dated 10.09.2024 made by respondent-3, which was forwarded by respondent-4 to respondent-2 vide letter dated 08.01.2025.

¶14

WRIC No. 45492 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

The petitioner, referring to the agreement dated 27.03.2017, submits that there was a clause which provided that the agreement can further be renewed or extended beyond the period of three years, if the district level committee found the work and the conduct of the petitioners satisfactory, for a further period of two years as mutually agreed upon between the grantor and the grantee. However, even after the expiry of the agreement period, if the work and conduct of the grantee was found satisfactory, and the grantee has not given in writing any advance or show cause notice about the said dissatisfaction by the grantor and a satisfactory report of the district level committee, then in such a case, further renewal of agreement for a period of five years by the grantor by way of renewal agreement between grantor and grantee, could be executed.

¶17

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice/order dated 18.08.2025. The respondent-2, has refused renewal of agreement of the petitioner as certain different innovations have been introduced in technical field due to which functioning of old age homes could be made more effective, sensitive and technologically more advance. In short, there was a change in policy brought about by the Government.

¶18

The petitioner's response to the order dated 18.08.2025 by submitting that the petitioners have implemented all the reforms of technological improvement and introduced Artificial Intelligence as also the installation of CCTV Cameras, Biometric Attendance System and Geo Fencing. In order to buttress the case of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the personnel of the petitioner working with old age persons have been trained for the last seven years and that they were sent for training at Old Care Foundation, New Delhi from time to time.

¶19

The petitioner is aggrieved basically by the non-extension of the contract. The contract expired in March, 2025. The case of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having responded to the letter dated 18.08.2025, without taking into consideration the response of the petitioner, a fresh

¶20

WRIC No. 45492 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

tender has been floated.

¶23

This Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner has a justiciable right to demand that he be continued by extending the contract and a clause in the contract only stated that the respondents may consider the extension of the contract. The Court also questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how there would be a violation of any statutory or fundamental right only because the petitioner had gone ahead and made changes/improvements as mentioned in the order dated 18.08.2025.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been violation of natural justice as the new tender is being floated without having passed an order after considering the response of the petitioner to the order dated 18.08.2025. He has further argued that this Court in a similar case of Kisan Seva Sansthan and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2021 (7) ADJ 264 (DB) has held in favour of the petitioner in that case. Having gone through the judgment, it appears that in the aforementioned case, the State had cancelled the contract with the petitioner therein on the basis of certain deficiencies in inspection report without giving show cause notice to the petitioner in that case. A co-ordinate Bench also held that cancellation of approval has to be a measure of last resort to be adopted when no realistic possibility is seen to exist to help or make such old age home run in accordance with laws.

¶25

Learned Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the petition. She has argued that the petitioner did not have any right to demand a mandamus in its favour only because it has been continuing to run the old age home on the basis of extension of the contract granted by the State earlier. She has further argued that there has been a change in the policy of the Government, which contemplates better facilities and provisions to be provided to the senior citizens staying in the old age homes, for which a fresh tender is being floated. She has further argued that

¶26

WRIC No. 45492 of 2025

¶27

4

¶28

there is nothing preventing the present petitioner from participating in that tender and if there is L-1 and compliant of all the conditions, he may well be considered. However, she has submitted that there is neither a justiciable statutory right in favour of the petitioner nor a fundamental right to demand such a mandamus.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶30

Undisputedly, the petitioner's contract is come to an end in the month of March, 2025. The only question is whether the petitioner can claim as a matter of right for the issuance of mandamus in its favour for further extension of the contract. For the purpose of securing a mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner must either show a violation of statutory right or fundamental right. The petitioner may have had a case if the contract between the petitioner and the respondents was terminated midway. In this case, the judgment cited by the petitioner would have had an application. However, that is not the case before this Court, there is no cancellation of the contract and there is a clear cut distinction between cancellation and lapse of the contract by efflux of time. Cancellation of the contract takes place during the existence of the contract period on account of any violation of any of the covenance of the contract. However, where the contract has lapsed by the efflux of time, or in other words, come to an end as the time specified in the contract itself has come to an end. In the present case, the contract has lapsed by efflux of time. Though, there is a discretion that is vested with the respondents to extend the tenure of the contract subject to fulfillment of the contract conditions. In this case, the State has decided not to exercise its discretion to extend the contract, it was well within the right to do so. Therefore, the petitioner have no grievance on that count.

¶31

As regards the violation of natural justice argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, on account of non-deciding the reply of the petitioner to the order dated 18.08.2025 is concerned, the same is not sustainable. Natural

¶32

WRIC No. 45492 of 2025

¶33

5

¶34

justice and its violation does not occur and neither can it be considered/appreciated in vacuum. There must be an existing right, which is either statutory or fundamental right which stands infracted on account of the affected party not being given an opportunity of hearing.

¶35

In the present case as already stated hereinabove, the petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate the existence of either a statutory right or fundamental right, which this Court could compel by way of a mandamus against the State directing it to extend the contract of the petitioner.

¶36

Under the circumstances, present petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶37

January 7, 2026 Noman

¶38

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyam Gramodyog Sansthan and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Gramodyog Sansthan and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Naresh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sangeeta Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Jishan Khan vs Union of India and 4 Others