JUDGMENT
Amitava Lala, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for granting relief in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner till fresh contract is made in accordance with law. It has been further prayed that the agreement entered into between the, respondent Nos. 2 and 4 (or 3?), after taking it on record from the respondents, may be quashed.
2. Against the reliefs sought by the petitioner, we have seen the factual f background of the case. We find that the petitioner’s contention is that there was an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 for the purpose of carrying out work in the nature of maintenance, repairs, annual washing and painting etc. in between 3.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 “or till fresh tender is called and decided finally”. According to the petitioner, later part of the agreement being or till fresh tender is called and decided finally gives right to the petitioner to continue with the work since no proper advertisement inviting tender had been made by the authority before entering into contract with respondent No. 3 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has shown a newspaper to establish that it does not contain any publication of notice inviting tender.
3. We have called upon the learned Standing Counsel and also Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, to whom the work has been entrusted, to take appropriate instruction and make their respective submissions before this Court in this respect. Both, the learned Standing counsel and the Learned Counsel appearing for private respondent, being respondent No. 3, had been directed to file copies of the newspapers of the date separately on the next date of hearing.
4. According to us, now a days different news items or publications in the same newspaper of the different localities is not unknown. It is only required to be seen whether the publication was made in the local newspaper/s where the petitioner resides or carries on his business. Yet we wanted to be satisfied on the basis of the documents. Today both, the State respondent and respondent no.3 have separately produced the newspapers of the date where we find that the notice inviting tender was properly published in the local newspapers of Varanasi where the petitioner resides or carries on his business. In further, necessary office order/s and circular/s as issued in support of publication by the State are also produced before this Court. We also find that there is a provision for inviting the tender under Article 360 of Chapter XII of the Financial Hand-Book Volume VI, which is quoted hereunder:
360. Tenders, which should always be sealed should invariable be invited in the most open and public manner possible, whether by advertisements in the Government Gazette or local newspapers, or by notice in English and the Vernacular posted in public places, and tenderers should have free access to the contract documents. The notice should in all cases state-
(1) The place where and the time when the contract documents can be seen, and the blank forms of tender obtained; also the amount, if any, to be paid for such forms of tender.
(2) The place where the date on which and the time when tenders are to be submitted and are to be opened [in the case of large contracts (i.e. over Rs. 50,000) this should be at least one month after the date of first advertisement or notice.]
(3) The amount of earnest money to be deposited and the amount and nature of the security deposit required in the case of the accepted tender.
(4) With whom or what authority the acceptance of the tender will rest. Authority should always be reserved to reject any or all of the tenders so received without the assignment of a reason, and this should be expressly stated in the advertisement.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has also contended before this Court that the petitioner had definite knowledge but not participated in the tender for the year 2007-2008 since he is ineligible. Therefore, an ineligible candidate can not turn around and challenge the tender notice. However, the petitioner has relied upon an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 18.7.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49150 of 2002 Udai Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and Anr. and contended that by virtue of such Division Bench Judgment the tender should be invited by publishing the same at least in two newspapers having wide circulation in the State like ‘Dainik Jagran’ and ‘Aaj’. He further contended that in view of the above judgment there should be proper wide circulation for inviting tender, but instead of doing that the contract has been given to respondent No. 3.
6. According to learned Standing Counsel, period of contract cannot be extended more than one year as per the Government Order dated 4/13th Januan/,2003. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the period of contract may not be restricted to a period of one year in view of the relevant clause therein. It can also be extended till fresh tender is called and decided finally. Since no proper publication was made regarding fresh tender the allotment of work to third party cannot be considered as outcome of final decision.
7. According to us, scope of the writ petition is very much limited. It is well known by now that the interference of the Writ Court in a case of contractual obligations between the governmental authorities and the private parties is depending upon certain conditions as laid down in Mahabir Auto Stores and Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors. which has been principally followed by the Courts subsequently. The laying down principle is that the method and motive of a decision of entering or not entering into a contract are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and nondiscrimination. We do not find any such thing from the mouth of the petitioner. The petitioner is an ineligible candidate for the future contract. Therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the conditions under the tender assuming for the time being that the tender notice was not widely circulated locally. A publication always relates to a person who has nexus with the publication. An ineligible candidate cannot have any such nexus. However, factually the publication has been made in the locality where the petitioner either resides or carries on business. Unless the publication is made, there cannot be any basis of subsequent office orders/circulars which have been produced before this Court by the learned Standing Counsel. In further, lawful right has been accrued in favour of the respondent No. 3 as per his eligibility. Therefore, in totality neither the law nor the equality is supporting the petitioner. Hence, taking into account all pros and cons we are of the view that no affirmative order can be passed in favour of the writ petitioner.
9. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, no order is passed as to costs.