IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4836/2010 M/s. Kamal Kumar Gulab Chand and anr. Versus. The Commissioner (EGS), Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Deptt. & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 09/04/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI ***
Mr. Bharat Yadav, for petitioners.
Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are presently contractors for supply of the material upto 15/04/2010 as evident from Anx.1.
They have challenged the fresh NIT issued by the Coordinator cum District Collector, Tonk (Anx.4) on the premise that once the respondent No.1-Commissioner, prior to issuance to NIT, referred to supra, had issued E. Mali to all the Chief Executive Officers of the State that the contractual period stands extended upto March, 2011 and in such circumstances, the respondents cannot be said to be justified in published fresh tender NIT (Anx.4) which is impugned in the instant writ petition.
It is not the case of the petitioners that in the terms and conditions of the contract any amendment has been made or decision has been taken by the respondents which may cause prejudice to them. On the contrary, his contention is that if the period stands extended by E.Mail sent to all the District Collectors, there was no necessity available with the respondents to issue fresh NIT.
In the opinion of this Court, the submission is without merit for the reasons that the terms of contract are never extended by E.Mail which has no authenticity and in absence of any decision being taken by the authority extending the period of contract executed between the parties, there cannot be any deemed extension by E. Mail. If the decision has been taken to issue fresh NIT for the financial year commencing from April, 2010, the authorities are well within their competence and the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved and if at all interested it was always open for them to participate in the fresh process which the authorities initiated in pursuance to NIT (Anx.4).
Consequently, this court finds no substance in the writ petition and it is hereby dismissed.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
Raghu/p.2/ 4836-CW-2010-final.doc