# Narayan Verma & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-17
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 8874 of 2020
- **Bench:** Govind Mathur, C.J. Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narayan-verma-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45980
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Rules,1984
-
Rule
18,19,21-challenge to -Government Order
regarding all the contractors. with any of
the
government
departments
in
participation of tender process-while rule
18,1984 does not permit a contractor not
registered to participate in tender process
and to have work of district panchayat on
contract-while
Rule
18
prescribes
procedure for registration of contractors. -
it nowhere mentions that only approved
contractors. shall be entitled to have
work-however, rule 18 says approved
contractor is require to deposit a definite
sum for executing the work of district
panchayat but that does not mean other
contractors.
shall
not
eligible-Moreso,
Rule 19 provides for affixing notice
inviting tenders at several places-it shows
that other contractors. may aware of the
works available on contract and may
participate therein-intention of the Rule
framing Authority was not to create
monopoly in grant of work on contractfinding arrived by Division Bench is
apparently in ignorance of the other
relevant provisions of the Rules,1984.
(Para 1 to 19)
The Petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)09ILR A492
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR, C.J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

WRIT - C No. 8874 of 2020

Narayan Verma & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ram Bhahadur Singh

A. Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zila
Parishads
Work
Rules,1984
-
Rule
18,19,21-challenge to -Government Order
regarding all the contractors. with any of
the
government
departments
in
participation of tender process-while rule
18,1984 does not permit a contractor not
registered to participate in tender process
and to have work of district panchayat on
contract-while
Rule
18
prescribes
procedure for registration of contractors. -
it nowhere mentions that only approved
contractors. shall be entitled to have
work-however, rule 18 says approved
contractor is require to deposit a definite
sum for executing the work of district
panchayat but that does not mean other
contractors.
shall
not
eligible-Moreso,
Rule 19 provides for affixing notice
inviting tenders at several places-it shows
that other contractors. may aware of the
works available on contract and may
participate therein-intention of the Rule
framing Authority was not to create
monopoly in grant of work on contractfinding arrived by Division Bench is
apparently in ignorance of the other
relevant provisions of the Rules,1984.
(Para 1 to 19)
The Petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Ashok Kumar Singh & ors. Vs St. Of U.P. &
ors., W.P. No. 6025 of 2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Govind Mathur, C.J.
 & Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Challenge in this petition for writ is
given to the direction of the Government of
Uttar Pradesh circulated under a letter
dated 16th August, 2019 to the effect that
all the contractors registered with any of
the government department shall entitled to
participate in tender process relating to any
work pertaining to the district panchayat.
The decision aforesaid was taken with an
object to have a better and broader choice
of contractors to undertake civil works
available with district panchayats.

2. The argument advanced by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners is that the Uttar Pradesh
Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Works
Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the
Rules of 1984) does not permit a contractor
not registered as per Rule 18 of the Rules
of 1984 to participate in tender process and
to have work of district panchayat on
contract.

3. It is stated that a Division Bench of
this Court at Lucknow in Ashok Kumar
Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and
others (Writ Petition (MB) No.6025 of
2020) has already adjudicated the issue and
declared the decision impugned illegal. The
relevant part of the judgment aforesaid
reads as follows:-

"The Government Order dated
16.08.2019 has been issued in ignorance of
9 All. Narayan Verma & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
493
the Rule 18 of the Rules of 1984. For ready
reference, Rule 18 is quoted hereunder:-

18.
Register
of
approved
contractors. - A register of approved
contractors shall be maintained in Form
No.W-1 in the office of the Parishad or
Kshettra Samiti. Contractors shall be
approved by inviting applications through
advertisement in the local newspapers and
after verifying the anticidents of the
applicants and obtaining the approval of
the Sarvajanik Nirman Samiti or Karya
Karini, as the case may be. Every
contractor approved for execution of the
works of a Parishad or a Kshettra Samiti
shall be required to deposit a sum of
Rs.100 as Registration fee before his name
is brought on the register of approved
contractors.

As per Rule 18 of the Rules of
1984, a register of approved contractors
shall be maintained in Form W-1 in the
office of Panchayat or Kshettra Panchayat.
The contractors shall be approved by
inviting
applications
through
advertisement. The approved contractor
would be for execution of the works of
Panchayats. Every contractor needs to
deposit a sum of Rs.100, as registration fee.

The Government Order dated
16.8.2019 has been passed in ignorance of
the aforesaid though for the object sought
to be achieved but it cannot be de hors the
statutory rules. A government order can
supplement statutory provisions but cannot
supplant.

The Government Order has been
made applicable on Panchayat while the
Irrigation Department as well as the Public
Works Department have not permitted any
registered contractor of Panchayat to
participate in their tender, as has been seen
by this Court in similar writ petitions.

In any case, the Government
Order dated 16.08.2019 cannot be allowed
to stand contrary to Rule 18 of the Rules of
1984 and accordingly to that extent, it is set
aside and to be specific on the issue, para
no.1
to
allow
participation
of
the
Contractor registered with the Irrigation
Department/Public
Works
Department/Rural Engineering Department
apart
from
others
Governments
Department in the tender floated by the
Panchayat is set aside.

The tenders impugned herein
permit participation of those contractors
not registered with the Panchayat. It
cannot be accepted and accordingly to that
extent, terms of tender would not be
enforced.

The participation in the impugned
tenders herein would be only of those
registered with the Panchayat/Kshettra
Panchayat under Rule 18 of the Rules of
1984 till it is not suitably amended."

4. While meeting with the argument
advanced, learned Standing Counsel states
that in Ashok Kumar Singh (supra) the
Division Bench did not examine complete
scheme of the Rules of 1984. Hence,
arrived at an erroneous conclusion. It is
asserted that the Rules of 1984 no where
restricts the contractors registered with
other
government
department
from
participating in tender process initiated for
the works relating to district panchayats,
and also not makes it necessary for the
district panchayats to avail services of the
contractors registered as per Rule 18 of the
Rules of 1984 only.

5. Heard learned counsels and
examined the entire scheme of the Rules of
1984.

6. Exercising powers under subsection (I) of Section 237 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Kshettra
Samitis
and
Zila
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Parishad's Act, 1961, the Governor of Uttar
Pradesh enacted the Rules to prescribe a
complete process to initiate, allocate and
accomplish the works related to district
panchayats.

7. The Rule 2 of the Rules prescribes
the definition of "Abhiyanta" and "Mukhya
Adhikari". As per clause (iii) of Rule 2
other terms used but not defined in the
Rules shall have the meaning assigned to
them in Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Zila
Parishad's and Kshettra Samitis (Budget
and General Accounts) Rules, 1965.

8. Rule 18 of the Rules pertains to
registration of approved contractors. For
ready reference, Rule 18 is quoted below:-

"18.
Register
of
approved
contractors. - A register of approved
contractors shall be maintained in Form
No.W-1 in the office of the Parishad or
Kshettra Samiti. Contractors shall be
approved by inviting applications through
advertisement in the local newspapers and
after verifying the anticidents of the
applicants and obtaining the approval of
the Sarvajanik Nirman Samiti or Karya
Karini, as the case may be. Every
contractor approved for execution of the
works of a Parishad or a Kshettra Samiti
shall be required to deposit a sum of
Rs.100 as Registration fee before his name
is brought on the register of approved
contractors.

9. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1984
provides a procedure for inviting tenders
relating to execution of a work of district
panchayat. The Rule 19 aforesaid reads as
follows:-

"19. Inviting of tenders. - No
contract for the execution of a work
estimated to cost more than Rs.5,000/-
shall be given until sealed tenders for the
tract, accompanied by earnest money to the
amount fixed by proper authority, have
been invited by public notice, which should
be published by insertion in one or more
local newspapers as the Mukhya Adhikari
or Khand Vikas Adhikari, as the case may
be, thinks fit and by pasting copies thereof
at conspicuous places at the office of the
Parishad
or
Kshettra
Samiti,
the
Collector's Office, the court of the District
Judge, or the court of every Additional
District Judge, and Munsif whether the
court of district is not situate, the
headquarter of every tehsil, local offices of
the Public Works Department (B and R),
Irrigation Department and Local SelfGovernment
Engineering
Department.
(Emphasis is given by us)

10. Rule 21 of the Rules of 1984
pertains to public notice and procedure
relating to tenders. For executing Rule 21,
Form W-2 is provided in the Rules and
recitals of that pertains to "contractors" and
not to the "approved contractors".

11. It would also be appropriate to
state that in entire Rules no provision is
made
to
disclose
eligibilities
or
ineligibilities for contractors.

12. In Ashok Kumar Singh and
others (supra) a Division Bench of this
Court by relying upon the language of Rule
18 arrived at the conclusion that the work
pertaining to district panchayats is available
only to the approved contractors and not to
the contractors of other departments.

13. On going through Rule 18 of the
Rules of 1984, it is apparent that the same
prescribes a procedure for registration of
contractors. It no where mentions that only
9 All. Narayan Verma & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
495
the contractors registered or are termed as
approved contractors shall be entitled to
have work contracts for district panchayats.

14. True it is, as per Rule 18 approved
contractor is require to deposit a definite
sum for executing the work of district
panchayat but that does not mean that the
other contractors registered or approved by
other departments shall not be eligible to
participate in the process of tender.

15. At the same time, Rule 19 of the
Rules of 1984 while providing procedure
for inviting tenders puts an embargo upon
the authority inviting tenders to affix notice
inviting tenders at several places including
the local office of the Public Works
Department
(B
and
R),
Irrigation
Department, and Local Self-Government
Engineering Department. The purpose of
affixing notice inviting tenders at these
places
indicates
that
the
contractors
registered with the departments aforesaid
may also be aware of the works available
on contract and may participate therein.
Otherwise there would have been no need
to affix the notice at the local offices of
other
technical
and
Engineering
departments.

16. Rule 21 pertains to public notice
and procedure relating to tenders and that no
where restricts the grant of work contracts of
panchayat department only to the approved
contractors referred in Rule 18.

17. At this stage, it would also be
relevant to state that Rule 2 of the Rules no
where
defines
the
term
"approved
contractors" as referred in Rule 18 of the
Rules of 1984.

18. By force of clause (iii), the terms
used but not defined in the Rules shall have
the meaning assigned to them in Rule 2 of
the Rules of 1965. On going through the
Rules aforesaid we noticed that the term
approved contractor is not defined therein
too. In absence of the definition of the term
aforesaid, the amplitude of it cannot be
extended to cause discrimination among the
contractors placed on registered roll of
government departments and further to
restrict the choice of Panchayat Raj
institutions to limited sphere. It is always
desirable to have a broad and better choice
with a view to achieve and attain better
quality of work. A statute is required to be
interpreted in the fashion that allows it to
be workable at its optimum and also in
consonance to the thrust of the complete
enactment. The position would have been
different, if any restriction would have been
given in the Rules of 1984 or by specific
assertion the "approved contractor" would
have been defined in such a manner to
create monopoly in grant of work on
contract. In entirety, we have to interpret
Rule
18
and
the
term
"Approved
Contractor" to satisfy thrust of the Rules.
As such, a conjoint reading of Rules 18 and
19 of the Rules of 1984 and by taking care
of other provisions we have to see the
intention of the Rule framing authority. For
the reasons already given, we are having no
doubt that the Rule framing authority was
not intending to confine the work contracts
of the district panchayats only to the
approved
contractors
or
registered
contractors under Rule 18.

19. The Division in the case of Ashok
Kumar Singh (supra) did not examined
complete scheme of the Rules and just
relied upon Rule 18. The finding arrived by
Division Bench is apparently in ignorance
of the other relevant provisions of the Rules
of 1984. No doubt the court while deciding
the case aforesaid was known to the statute
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicable but did not chose to appreciate
its relevance in entirety, as such the finding
arrived is in-curia. Hence, we are not abide
by the same.

20. For the reasons given by us, the
petition for writ is having no merit. Hence,
dismissed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A496
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

WRIT - C No. 13313 of 2020
&
WRIT - C No. 12843 of 2020
&
WRIT - C No. 13284 of 2020
&
WRIT - C No. 12629 of 2020

Kanikram & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anoop Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Diptiman Singh, Sri Kartikeya
Saran, Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar'

A. Civil Law - U.P. Sugarcane (Regualtion of
Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953-Section 17 &
U.P. Sugarcane (Regualtion of Supply and
Purchase)
Rules,
1954-Rule
45
maintainibility of-petitioners aggrieved due
to non-discharge of legal burden imposed
upon the respondents under the Act 1953-a
person denied or deprived of something to
which one is legally entitled in order to make
one "a person aggrieved"-such person shall
have the locus standi to maintain the writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution.(Para 23)

B. Non-payment of sugarcane supplied to
Sugar Mill-petitioners have a legal right
u/s 17 of the Act 1953 to get payment of
sugarcane supplied to the Sugar Mill
immediately and in any case within 15
days
without
interest-
The
Cane
Commissioner
failed
to
ensure
enforcement of the provisions of Section
17(4) of the Act,1953-even after issuance
of recovery certificate, neither sugar mill
nor
cane
commissioner
ensured
the
payment
to
the
petitioners
as
per
provision of the Act-the occupier of the
factory did not make adequate provisions,
duly evinced by the records of the factory,
prior to purchase of cane-inexplicable
delay in issuance of certificate by the Cane
Commissioner shows indulgence with the
sugar mill-indulgence indicates neglect of
the authorities towards the fundamental
rights
of
the
distraught
farmersconcerned authorities failed to discharge
their statutory obligation.(Para 25 to 35)
The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Akram Khan & anr. Vs St. Of U.P. & 3 ors.,
WRIT C No. 38324 of 2019

2. Vishambhar Dayal & 5 ors. Vs St. Of U.P. & 5
ors.,WRIT C No. 41791 of 2019

3. Ram Chand & 8 ors. Vs St. Of U.P. & 4 ors.,
WRIT C No. 7166 of 2020

4. Swami Nath & 24 ors. Vs St. Of U.P. & 4 ors.,
WRIT C No. 12762 of 2020

5. Anand Agro Chemical India Ltd. Vs Suresh
Chandra & ors.,(2014) 3 SCC 631

6. Hari Shanker Vs Cane Commr.(2004) ALL LJ
3322

7. Bar Council of Mah. Vs M.V. Dabholkar & ors.
(1975)
2
SCC
702