# Satendra Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 802
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13693 of 2003
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R. S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satendra-kumar-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40205
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
14settlement of contract with civil supply
department-G.O. dated 13.8.81 provides
the mode for settlement only through
tender-contract
finalized
with
the
authorities inflagrant violation of the
said G.O., without inviting any tenderheld- illegal- amounts to discrimination
for other interested persons.

Held- Para 9

In the present case this entire procedure
has been given a complete go bye, and
instead respondent no. 3 has been
fragrantly violating the law and evidently
in collusion with respondents 6 and 7
has been granted transport and work
contracts without calling for any tender.
This has been done year after year since
the last three years or so. Not only
Article 14 of the Constitution has been
violated
but
also
the
G.O.
dated
13.5.2001
Annexure
1
to
the
writ
petition which states that contract shall
be given by inviting tender has been
violated.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1979 SC 1628, AIR 1983 SC 1207, AIR
1985 SC 1147, 1999 (i) AWC-817, 2003 (i)
(51) ALR 791

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Practice
or
Procedure-settlement
of
contract without following the procedure
prescribed either in G.O. or the ambit of
Article 14 of the Constitution court
expressed its great concern-direction
issued to enquire into the matter to
single court those guilty officer-held
responsible for violation of constitutional
ambit.

Held- Para 16

Since this petition has brought to light a
case of flagrant violation of law and
grant of public contracts illegally we
direct the Secretary, Food and Civil
Supply,
U.P.
to
order
a
thorough
investigation into the matter and strong
legal action against those responsible for
those
illegalities,
must
be
taken.
Compliance report must be sent to this
Court at the earliest.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.7.2003

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13693 of 2003

Satendra Kumar Tripathi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.N. Singh
Sri H.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
14settlement of contract with civil supply
department-G.O. dated 13.8.81 provides
the mode for settlement only through
tender-contract
finalized
with
the
authorities inflagrant violation of the
said G.O., without inviting any tenderheld- illegal- amounts to discrimination
for other interested persons.

Held- Para 9

In the present case this entire procedure
has been given a complete go bye, and
instead respondent no. 3 has been
fragrantly violating the law and evidently
in collusion with respondents 6 and 7
has been granted transport and work
contracts without calling for any tender.
This has been done year after year since
the last three years or so. Not only
Article 14 of the Constitution has been
violated
but
also
the
G.O.
dated
13.5.2001
Annexure
1
to
the
writ
petition which states that contract shall
be given by inviting tender has been
violated.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1979 SC 1628, AIR 1983 SC 1207, AIR
1985 SC 1147, 1999 (i) AWC-817, 2003 (i)
(51) ALR 791

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Practice
or
Procedure-settlement
of
contract without following the procedure
prescribed either in G.O. or the ambit of
Article 14 of the Constitution court
expressed its great concern-direction
issued to enquire into the matter to
single court those guilty officer-held
responsible for violation of constitutional
ambit.

Held- Para 16

Since this petition has brought to light a
case of flagrant violation of law and
grant of public contracts illegally we
direct the Secretary, Food and Civil
Supply,
U.P.
to
order
a
thorough
investigation into the matter and strong
legal action against those responsible for
those
illegalities,
must
be
taken.
Compliance report must be sent to this
Court at the earliest.

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

1. By means of this writ petition the
petitioner has prayed for a mandamus
restraining the respondents 6 and 7 from
working as transport contractor for the
respondent department after 31.3.2003
and to appoint transport and handling
contractor of Food and Civil Supply
Department of districts Sonbhadra, Sant
Ravi Das Nagar, Mirzapur for the
financial year 2003 -04 in accordance
with the G.O. dated 13.5.2001 only after
inviting tenders from the public at large
and permitting all eligible persons.

2. In this case on 30.1.2003 this
Court granted learned Standing Counsel
three weeks time to file counter affidavit
and issued notices to respondents 6 and 7
returnable at an early date. The order
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Satendra Kumar Tripathi V. State of U.P. and others
803
sheet of 20.5.2003 shows that there is an
office report that the notices were issued
to the respondents 6 and 7 vide Registered
A.D.
Post
but
neither
the
acknowledgement nor undelivered cover
has been received back after service and
no counter affidavit has been filed.

3. On 7.7.2003 when this case was
listed before us none appeared for the
respondents 6 and 7 and no counter
affidavit had been filed by the learned
Standing Counsel. Since notice had been
issued to the respondents 6 and 7 as is
evident from the office report dated
20.5.2003 we treat the notices to have
been served on respondents 6 and 7 in
view of Explanation II Chapter 8 Rule 12
of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

4. The petitioner claims to be a
contractor of the Food and Civil Supply
Department of districts Mirzapur, Sant
Ravi Das Nagar and Sonbhadra. He takes
contract of handling and transporting
grains and other food articles from the
Department.
The
State
Government
issued a G.O. dated 13.5.2001 for
appointing transport contractors. True
copy of the G.O. dated 13.5.2001 is
Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Clause 4
of the said G.O. provides that the
appointment of the transport contractor
may be made by inviting tenders.

5. It is alleged in paragraph 9 to 12
of the writ petition that the respondents 6
and 7 Mahendra Kumar Gupta and Jag
Narain Singh as well as the Senior
Marketing Inspector, Sonbhadra are in
collusion and have caused number of
irregularities
and
embezzled
huge
amounts. An FIR was lodged and the
District
Magistrate,
Mirzapur
after
conducting the enquiry has recommended
suspension of the Senior Marketing
Inspector, Sri G.P. Singh vide letter dated
4.9.2002, Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
As stated in paragraph 10 of the writ
petition, an enquiry was held against these
illegal acts and the Marketing officer,
Mirzapur recommended to the Regional
Food Contractor, Varanasi division vide
enquiry report dated 20.8.2002 to black
list respondents 6 and 7. True copy of the
enquiry report is Annexure 4 to the writ
petition.
However,
despite
these
recommendations no action was taken
against the respondents 6 and 7 or against
the Senior Marketing Inspector Sri G.P.
Singh.

6. In paragraph 12 of the writ
petition it is alleged that the officials of
the Food and Civil Supply Department,
district Mirzapur and Sonbhadra are also
in collusion with respondents 6 and 7 and
they have influenced the Regional Food
Controller, Mirzapur in such a manner
that they have been granted transport
contracts again and again continuously for
the last three years without any tender.
Others are not allowed to participate in
the contract, and thus there is violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution. True copy
of the representation of the petitioner and
other contractors is Annexure 5 to the writ
petition. The Commissioner, Mirzapur by
order dated 12.4.2002 addressed to the
Regional Food Controller, Vindhyachal
Division called for an explanation as to
why new contractors are not being
registered and old contractors are being
given contracts at the old rates. True copy
of this letter is Annexure 6 to the writ
petition. The Commissioner, Mirzapur has
also requested the Commissioner, Food
and Civil Supply, U.P. to direct the
Regional Food Controller, Mirzapur to
register new contractors and finalize the
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
contract after inviting the tender vide
Annexure 7 to the writ petition.

7. It is alleged in paragraph 17 of the
writ petition that the Regional Food
Controller
Vindhyachal
Division,
Mirzapur has again and again extended
the period of transport contract given to
the respondents 6 and 7 for the last three
years without calling for any tender.

8. This petition discloses an alarming
state of affairs. It is well settled that
public contracts are in not large as held by
the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty vs. International Airport Authority
of India AIR 1979 SC 1628. Ordinarily,
before any public contract is granted there
must be an advertisement in well known
newspapers having wide circulation in
which the date, time and place of the
public auction/tender is fixed so that all
eligible persons can apply and there can
thus be compliance of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
This
will
also
ensure
transparency in administration.

9. In the present case this entire
procedure has been given a complete go
bye, and instead respondent no. 3 has
been fragrantly violating the law and
evidently in collusion with respondents 6
and 7 has been granted transport and work
contracts without calling for any tender.
This has been done year after year since
the last three years or so. Not only Article
14 of the Constitution has been violated
but also the G.O. dated 13.5.2001
Annexure 1 to the writ petition which
states that contract shall be given by
inviting tender has been violated.

10. What is shocking is that these
contracts have been granted to persons
who are under a cloud, as stated in
paragraph 9 to 12 of the writ petition.
There are serious allegations against
respondents 6 and 7 who appear to be in
collusion with the Senior Marketing
Inspector.
The
Marketing
Officer
Mirzapur
has
recommended
to
the
Regional Food Controller to black list the
respondents 6 and 7 and the district
Magistrate
has
recommended
for
suspension of the Senior Marketing
Inspector Sri G.P. Singh with whom
respondents 6 and 7 appear to be in
collusion. However, no action has been
taken against these persons for reasons
best known to the Government, and
instead the malpractice has been allowed
to continue.

11. The allegations in the writ
petition are un rebutted and no counter
affidavit has been filed and we see no
reason to disbelieve the same. There is
total violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution
because
other
eligible
persons were not given opportunity to
apply for the contract.

12. It has been held by the Supreme
Court in State of Haryana Vs. Jageram
AIR 1983 SC 1207 and Ram and Shyam
Company vs. State of Haryana and
others AIR 1985 SC 1147 that public
contract should not ordinarily be given by
private negotiations.

13. In Panchu vs. Collector 1999
(1)
AWC
817
and
Ram
Pravesh
Vishwakarma vs. State of U.P. 2003 (1)
(51) ALR 791 etc. this Court held that
public contract should be granted only
after public auction/ public tender after
publicity in newspapers having wide
circulation in the area, otherwise there
will be violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Taiyab V. State of U.P. and others
805
14. Since the allegations in the writ
petition are un rebutted we have to accept
the same. Thus it must be held that there
was no tender before awarding the
contract to the respondents 6 and 7 and
evidently
it
was
done
by
private
negotiations and in collusion with the
authority concerned. Hence any contract
awarded to respondents 6 and 7 are
consequently quashed.

15. The petition is allowed. The
respondents 6 and 7 are restrained from
functioning as transport contractors of the
department.

16. Since this petition has brought to
light a case of flagrant violation of law
and grant of public contracts illegally we
direct the Secretary, Food and Civil
Supply, U.P. to order a thorough
investigation into the matter and strong
legal action against those responsible for
those
illegalities,
must
be
taken.
Compliance report must be sent to this
Court at the earliest.

Let a copy of this judgement be sent
by the Registrar General of this to the
Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, and
Chief Secretary, U.P. forthwith.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3298 of
2003

Taiyab

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Tripathi
Sri V.P. Srivastva

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Constitution of India Article 226-Read
with
Section
178
Cr.P.C.-Territorial
Jurisdiction-F.I.R.
Lodged
against
petitioner at New Delhi and Ghaziabadwhether Delhi Police or the U.P. Police
has jurisdiction to investigate? -HeldBoth the state's Police have jurisdiction
to investigate.

Held- Para 15

Investigation is a preliminary stage in
the detection of a crime. So far as
investigation into any crime or offence is
concerned, it is purely for the collection
of evidence. It is immaterial whether it is
done by Delhi police or U.P. Police. Till
the stage of investigation, question of
prejudice is not likely to arise.

In cases like this, both the State's police
has jurisdiction to investigate, there is
no doubt in the legal position.
Case Law:
AIR 1957 S.C. 196,
AIR 1966 SC 128,
AIR 1967 Delhi 88,
AIR 1923 Mad 666,
AIR 1959 AP 657,