Disposed

Kamlesh Singh Alias Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Uttarkhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Apr 2022WPMS/234/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment closed a writ petition. The court held that since four contractors were eligible under the previous advertisement and the petitioner was among them, the grievance raised by the petitioner that a fresh advertisement was issued has been effectively redressed. Consequently, the court decided not to pass orders on merits regarding the quashing of the new advertisement or the mandamus pra

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed as the grievance was considered redressed without orders on merits.

SL. No Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
01.04.2022		WPMS No. 234 of 2021 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State. The petitioner had preferred this writ petition, praying for quashing the advertisement dated 07.01.2021, by virtue of which, fresh registration applications, were invited from the probable contractors by the Block Development Officer. The petitioner has simultaneously prayed for a writ of mandamus, that he may be permitted to perform the work under the terms of the contract, which was executed in his favour, which according to him, the period was supposed to expire on 30.09.2022. Notices were issued to the respondents and the respondents have filed their counter affidavit and as per the pleadings raised in para 4 of the counter affidavit, four contractors were found to be eligible and the registration certificate was also issued to them, which included the petitioner also. The relevant para 4 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:- “4. That vide advertisement No. 1004@foKfIr@Bsdsnkj iathdj.k@2020&21 dated 07.01.2021 published in daily news paper Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran application were invited for registration of contractors B class as by advertisement dated 05.09.2020 only 04 contractor were found eligible and in this regard registration certificate were issued for those 4 contractors for the period 01.10.2020 to 30.09.2022. It is further submitted that as per the availability of the work in block there is shortage of number of contractors hence the new advertisement was issued for the purpose of registration of contractor in B class category. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is also a registered contractor in terms of advertisement dated 05.09.2020 and his registration certificate is valid till 30.09.2022.” In view of the aforesaid averments,

SL.
No
Date

Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings or
directions and Registrar’s
order with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

01.04.2022

WPMS No. 234 of 2021
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.C. Joshi, Brief Holder, for the
State.
The petitioner had preferred this writ
petition, praying for quashing the advertisement
dated 07.01.2021, by virtue of which, fresh
registration applications, were invited from the
probable contractors by the Block Development
Officer. The petitioner has simultaneously
prayed for a writ of mandamus, that he may be
permitted to perform the work under the terms
of the contract, which was executed in his
favour, which according to him, the period was
supposed to expire on 30.09.2022.
Notices were issued to the respondents
and the respondents have filed their counter
affidavit and as per the pleadings raised in para
4 of the counter affidavit, four contractors were
found to be eligible and the registration
certificate was also issued to them, which
included the petitioner also. The relevant para 4
of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:-
“4.
That
vide
advertisement
No.
1004@foKfIr@Bsdsnkj
iathdj.k@2020&21
dated
07.01.2021
published in daily news paper Amar Ujala and Dainik
Jagran application were invited for registration of
contractors B class as by advertisement dated 05.09.2020
only 04 contractor were found eligible and in this regard
registration certificate were issued for those 4 contractors
for the period 01.10.2020 to 30.09.2022. It is further
submitted that as per the availability of the work in block
there is shortage of number of contractors hence the new
advertisement was issued for the purpose of registration of
contractor in B class category. It is pertinent to mention here
that the petitioner is also a registered contractor in terms of
advertisement dated 05.09.2020 and his registration
certificate is valid till 30.09.2022.”
In view of the aforesaid averments,

which has been affidavit, in fact, as of now stand not be prejudice advertisement da Hence, averments, the orders are requir	made in para 4 of the counter the grievance of the petitioner s redressed and his rights will in pursuance to the impugned ted 07.01.2021. in view of the aforesaid writ petition is closed as no ed to be passed on merits.
Mahinder/	(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 01.04.2022

which has been
affidavit, in fact,
as of now stand
not be prejudice
advertisement da
Hence,
averments, the
orders are requir

made in para 4 of the counter
the grievance of the petitioner
s redressed and his rights will
in pursuance to the impugned
ted 07.01.2021.
in view of the aforesaid
writ petition is closed as no
ed to be passed on merits.

Mahinder/

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
01.04.2022

Kamlesh Singh Alias Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Uttarkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Singh Alias Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Uttarkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Goswami Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sunita Sheshma Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences New Delhi

Sheetal College of Biomedical Science Vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna (H N B) Garhwal University

Dinesh Singh Rawat Vs Shrimati Roma

Smt Saroj Devi Vs Pradeep Kumar

Shri Sai Enterprises Roling Reels Vs Union of India