Jassi Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

2025:HHC:9481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP No. 5088 of 2025 Decided on: 11.04.2025

Jassi Devi. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others. …Respondents.
_____________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge,

¶5

Whether approved for	reporting?¹. No
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate.
For the Respondents: _______________________	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. Advocates General. __________________________________

¶6

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral):

¶7

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:

¶8

i) “That the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) read with e-auction notice contained in Annexure P-10 duly signed and issued by the respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and set aside being wrong, arbitrary, illegal nonspeaking, unreasoned and violative of clause No.3 of the agreement dated 30.06.2023 with all consequential benefits and the respondents be further directed to renew the tender of the petitioner as per Clause No.3 of the Agreement dated 30.06.2023 (Annexure P-1) and justice be done.

¶9

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶10

2025:HHC:9481

¶11

2

¶12

ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 30.09.2024 contained in Annexure P-9 before conducting fresh tender for Ticket Window at Raigarh under Wildlife Range, Karsog in pursuance of Annexure P-10 and justice be done”.

¶13

The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner, after completing codal formalities, was awarded a tender of Ticket Window at Raigarh under Wildlife Range, Karsog for a period of one year from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024. An agreement (Annexure P-1) to this effect was duly executed between the parties. According to the petitioner, there was complete ban on the road from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024, as temple of Goddess Shikari Mata was ordered to be closed completely for pilgrims from 20.11.2023 to 07.04.2024 keeping in view heavy rains, natural calamities and disaster expected during this period. The petitioner, accordingly, made a request for extension of the tender period for another one year from 01.07.2024 to 30.06.2025 in terms of clause No.3 of the agreement. The respondents considered the request and extended the period only for three months, i.e. 01.07.2024 to 30.09.2024 and his further request was turned down by

¶14

2025:HHC:9481

¶15

3

¶16

the respondents vide letter dated 26.06.2024 by according the following reasons:

¶17

“In this context, it is intimated that as per field report of RO WL Karsog during the rainy season Mandi to Janjehli road and Janjehli to Shikari Devi road was totally smooth for transportation.

¶18

Moreover you have made request to extend the award for another period of choosen five months, i.e. October, 2024, April 2025 to July 2025 which is not feasible as such many applications have been received in this office with request to call the Open/Onine tender for Ticket Window at Raigarh. So in the interest of Govt. further extension cannot be granted.

¶19

You are therefore requested to hand over the ticket window at Raigarh to RO WL Karsog after the expiry date of award i.e. 30.09.2024.”

¶20

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

¶21

It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel

¶22

for the petitioner that it is on account of unforeseen circumstances that the petitioner had made a request to extend the tender, which ought to have been considered by the respondents.

¶23

We find no merit in this submission as the petitioner had wide eyes open while accepting the terms and conditions of the tender and was well aware of the

¶24

2025:HHC:9481

¶25

4

¶26

fact that the Temple referred to above is situated in high altitude and would definitely close during the winter months.

¶27

That apart, there is no vested or accrued right in favour of the petitioner to get the extension, as is evident from clause 3 of the agreement, which reads as under:

¶28

“3. The period of contract shall be for one year which shall be renewed on year to year basis, based on quality of services and performance of previous years (s).”

¶29

It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid

¶30

clause that there is no obligation on the part of the respondents to grant extension to the petitioner. In the given circumstances, the petitioner has no cause of action as the said clause does not create any vested right for extension of the tender in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

Moreover, the said clause clearly provides discretion to the respondents and even though the respondents were not obliged to assign any reason whatsoever, yet they have assigned cogent reasons for not granting further extension to the petitioner. Hence, the

¶32

2025:HHC:9481

¶33

5

¶34

petitioner has no locus standi and cause of action in her favour.

¶35