# AWC 260 Dr. Smt. Keshav Devi v. The Addl. District Magistrate (Civil

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 634
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18229 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/awc-260-dr-smt-keshav-devi-v-the-addl-district-magistrate-civil-40142
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri N. Das
Sri A. Pandey
Sri S.P. Pandey
Sri Ravi Kant
Sri Amarendra Pandey
Sri R.R. Agarwal
S. C.

Constitution of India Article 226-Practice
and procedure unless the decision of
administrative
authority,
arbitrary
ground or illegal High Court not to
interfere or to act like court of appeal.

Held- Para 9

It is well settled that in administrative
matters the Court should not sit in
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Yogesh Chandra Rajvedi V. II A.D.J., Kanpur and others
635
appeal
over
the
decisions
of
the
administrative authorities, but can only
interfere
where
there
is
total
arbitrariness
or
illegality
vide
Tata
Cellular Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC

## Text

634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Court. It is stated that the question of
restoration of possession to the petitioner
whose licensce was revoked, was not
considered by this court nor the question
of jurisdiction of the revisional court to
pass an order for restoration of possession
for which only the District Magistrate had
been authorized under section 18 (3) of
the Act.

15. Admittedly the order dated
13.4.1977 and 16.6.1977 passed under
section 16 of the Rent Control Act, were
set aside by the revisional Court under
section 18 (1) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972
by order dated 7.7.1978. As such the
District Magistrate had no power to
review its own order under section 18 (3)
of the Act are analogous to the executing
court and it can only execute, implement
and enforce the order by which an order
of release or allotment under section 16 of
the Act is rescinded. Once the District
Judge has rescinded the order and has
directed the applicant to be put back in
possession, the District Magistrate while
enforcing the aforesaid order, cannot go
beyond it and sit in appeal over it. Under
the scheme of the Act the powers
exercised by the District Magistrate are
subject to the powers of supervision given
to the District Judge under Section18 (1)
of the Act. The District Magistrate while
exercising power under section 18 (3) of
the Act to that of executing Court, cannot
go beyond the terms of the order sought to
be enforced and he cannot enter into the
merit or de-merit of the case. The same
view has been held by this court in 1998
(1) AWC 260 Dr. Smt. Keshav Devi Vs.
The Addl. District Magistrate (Civil
Supply) Lucknow and 1984 (1) ARC 327
Abdul Ghafoor Vs. The Rent Control and
Eviction Officer/D.S.O. Saharanpur and
another.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the
writ petition is allowed. The impugned
orders 18.6.1983 and 15.2.1984 are
quashed. The matter is remanded back to
the court below for fresh decision in
accordance with law in the light of
observations made above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18229 of 2001

M/s C.L. Gupta & Sons and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.P. Gupta
Sri Suneet Kumar
Sri U.N. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N. Das
Sri A. Pandey
Sri S.P. Pandey
Sri Ravi Kant
Sri Amarendra Pandey
Sri R.R. Agarwal
S. C.

Constitution of India Article 226-Practice
and procedure unless the decision of
administrative
authority,
arbitrary
ground or illegal High Court not to
interfere or to act like court of appeal.

Held- Para 9

It is well settled that in administrative
matters the Court should not sit in
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Yogesh Chandra Rajvedi V. II A.D.J., Kanpur and others
635
appeal
over
the
decisions
of
the
administrative authorities, but can only
interfere
where
there
is
total
arbitrariness
or
illegality
vide
Tata
Cellular Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC
11. We see nothing arbitrary or illegal in
the method adopted by the respondents.
The selection was done by a committee
of senior officials of the department and
the opinion of the Audit Section and
Finance Controller was also obtained.
There is no merit in this petition and it is
dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for a writ of certiorari to quash the
contract granted in favour of respondent
no.5 and for mandamus directing the
respondents to execute the contract in
favour of the petitioner firm.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner nos. is a
partnership firm and petitioner no.2 is a
partner of the said firm. The petitioner
manufactures and exports brasswares etc.

3.

The
respondent
no.4
Commandant, 11th B. PAC Sitapur issued
an advertisement in the newspapers
inviting tenders for sale of mutilated
empty cartridge cases made of brass. The
petitioner firm submitted its tender. As
per the terms and conditions the tenders
were opened on 28.1.2000. There were 26
firms who submitted their tenders. It is
alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition that
the market value of the scraps is
approximately Rs. 1.5 crore.

4. On 28.1.2000 the tender forms of
the 26 firms were opened and it is alleged
in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that
the petitioner's bid was the highest.
However, the contract was settled in
favour of the respondent no.5. It is alleged
in paragraph 20 of the petition that the
respondents have acted on extraneous
considerations in settling the contract in
favour of the respondent no.5 at a much
lower rate. It is stated in paragraph 12 of
the petition that the petitioner's offer was
Rs.75.11 per kg. Where as the offer of the
respondent no.5 was 75.10 per kg.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of respondent no.1 to 4 and we
have perused the same. In paragraph 25 of
the same it is stated that the rates
mentioned in paragraph 12 of the writ
petition are exclusive of expenses and
taxes, and if expenses and taxes are added
then the rate offered by the respondent
no.5 will be the highest. Annexure-CA-3
is a comparative chart of the petitioner as
well as the respondent no.5. 75.11 per Kg.
but inclusive of taxes and expenses it will
be Rs.8097.77 paisa per quintal. On the
other hand, the rate quoted by the
respondent
no.5 is 75.10 per Kg.
exclusive of taxes and expenses, but it is
Rs. 8501.53 paisa after adding taxes and
expenses. Hence if taxes and expenses are
added the rate quoted by the respondent
no.5 is higher than that of the petitioner.
The
matter
was
considered
by
a
Committee constituted by the Police
Head Quarter in which four Officers of
the Police Head quarter at Allahabad as
well as the Commandant, 11th Bn.PAC,
Sitapur were members. The Committee
also obtained the opinion of the Audit
Section and Finance Controller, Hence it
is alleged that there was full transparency
in the matter. In paragraph 33 of the same
it is stated that the respondent no.5 has
already filed materials on several dates
and there is no malafide.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003

A counter affidavit has also been
filed by the respondent no.5.
6. Annexure-CA-1 to the same
contains
the
terms
and
conditions.
According to the Clause-12 of the same,
besides the tender rates the buyers would
be
charged
to
trade
tax
at
5%,
Departmental charge at 5% and Handling
charge at 2%. In paragraph 10 of the same
it is stated that the tender rate of the
petitioner was Rs.75.11 per kg whereas
that of the respondent no.5 was Rs.75.10
per kg. Thus the difference was every
small. In paragraph 12 of the same it is
stated that the petitioner has been granted
recognition certificate for the purchase of
raw material at concessional rate vide
Annexure-CA-3 to the affidavit. It is
alleged that it is not necessary that the
highest bidder should always be granted
the contract.

7. In paragraph 17 and 18 of the
counter affidavit it has been stated that if
the tender of the petitioner had been
accepted the State Government would
have suffered a substantial loss. As the
respondent no.5 will be paying Rs.
1,48,77677.05 to the State where the
petitioner would have paid only Rs.1,
41,71,097.50 paisa. Thus the respondent
no.5 will be paying about Rs.7 Lakhs
more to the State.

8. On the facts of the case we find
no merit in this petition. No doubt if the
rate exclusive of taxes and expenses is
seen the petitioner rate is slightly higher
than the rate of the respondent no.5. but if
the taxes and expenses are included vide
Annexure-CA-3 to the counter affidavit
then the rate of respondent no.5 is higher.
Thus it was the option of the authorities to
which of the two methods should be
adopted i.e. whether the rate exclusive of
taxes and expenses should be seen, or the
rate inclusive of taxes and expenses is to
be seen. When the authorities had adopted
the second alternative it is not for this
Court to sit in appeal over their decision.

9. It is well settled that in
administrative matters the Court should
not sit in appeal over the decisions of the
administrative authorities, but can only
interfere where there is total arbitrariness
or illegality vide Tata Cellular Vs.
Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11. We see
nothing arbitrary or illegal in the method
adopted by the respondents. The selection
was done by a committee of senior
officials of the department and the
opinion of the Audit Section and Finance
Controller was also obtained. There is no
merit in this petition and it is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 38847 of 2002

Durgesh Kumar Tiwari
...Petitioner
Versus
Chief General Manager State Bank of
India and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.D. Mandhyan
Sri Khurshad Alam

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Misra

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Compassionate appointment-philosophy
of appointment foundation of social
Justice & right to life-if must prevail over
technicalities 3 daughter and one son,
alongwith widow-amount of pension
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in