Disposed

Hasina Begam v. Nagar Panchayat Sultanpur

Uttarakhand HC2 Jul 2020WPMS/965/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand, at Nainital, disposed of a writ petition concerning the vague rejection of a petitioner's contractor registration. The court directed the Nagar Panchayat to hear all sides and provide specific reasons for any rejection. The tender process was stayed pending consideration of the petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Nagar Panchayat to hear the petitioner and assign reasons for rejection; stay on tender process pending a representation.

Hasina Begam Vs Nagar Panchayat Sultanpur — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.965 of 2020

¶2

Hasina Begam ….Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

Nagar Panchayat Sultanpur & others

¶5

....Respondents

¶6

Present:- Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Joshi, Standing Counsel, for the State/respondent no. 3. Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 & 2.

¶7

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J .

¶8

The petitioner claims to be a petty contractor, who is doing civil work inter alia for the Local Bodies. The registration for the work has been denied to the petitioner by “Nagar Panchayat, Sultanpur” on ground that one Mohammad Akram had moved a complaint before the “Nagar Panchayat” pointing out anomalies in the registration and renewal of the contractors.

¶9

On this ground the renewal/registration application of the petitioner as a contractor of the “Nagar Panchayat, Sultanpur” has been rejected. The order rejecting the request of the petitioner for registration and the renewal is on an absolutely vague. The only reason assigned is that there is a complaint of one Mohammad Akram. In the said order, notices for this rejection is not only given to the petitioner but to 4 to 9 such contractors.

¶10

In the counter affidavit filed by the “Nagar Panchayat”, it has been stated that the petitioner was never registered with the “Nagar Panchayat, Sultanpur” as a

¶11

¶12

contractor and therefore her claim for renewal cannot be considered, etc.

¶13

The petitioner alleges that the renewal and the rejection of the registration on the part of the “Nagar Panchayat, Sultanpur” is due to malafide reasons and this has only be done in order to give contract to other persons.

¶14

With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Sultanpur, District Udham Singh Nagar to hear the petitioner and all other concerned persons who are referred in the order dated 17.06.2020. Either “Nagar Panchayat, Sultanpur” shall grant registration/renewal to these contractors, or if their claim is rejected reasons must be assigned as to why their claim has been rejected. Petitioner shall move a representation with one week. The representation of the petitioner shall be decided within one week thereafter.

¶15

Till such a representation is disposed, the respondents shall not move further with the tender process.

¶16

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 02.07.2020

¶17

Nitesh/

Hasina Begam v. Nagar Panchayat Sultanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasina Begam v. Nagar Panchayat Sultanpur

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

Asfi Suhail Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ram Narayan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashiya Begam Vs Union of India

M/S Sansera Engineering Limited Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Roop Polymers Limited Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rama Panels Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Uttarakhand