ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.
The petitioner, an unemployed graduate who was allotted MTNL STD/ISD booth in the premises of respondent No. 1 & 2 at All India Institute of Medical Sciences has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondents having issued a notice calling for fresh tenders (Annexure ‘D’ page 25 of the paper book),
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bajpai has submitted before me that under the 1993 Policy the STD/ISD booths were to be allotted only to unemployed persons and the impugned invitation to tender/advertisement at Annx.-D at page 25, does not contain any such restriction. He, therefore, submits that the said tender is bad on account of not restricting it to unemployed persons, but for not even reserving a quota for the unemployed persons. Another plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the MTNL had in a communication appearing at page 13 addressed to the warden of the AIIMS stated that the STD telephone connection/booth had been given to the petitioner on perpetual basis. Learned counsel submits that in any case even the agreement entered into by the AIIMS with the petitioner dated 12-8-1997 was renewable on early basis if the service of the petitioner were satisfactory.
3. Learned counsel further urges that the respondent No. 5 to whom the booth has been allotted was also the beneficiary of other STD booths and hence, was not entitled to the allotment.
4. Learned counsel for the AIIMS, Mr. Mukul Gupta and Mr. Piyush Sharma for the MTNL have been heard, the pleas of the petitioner have been refuted by the respondent as regards the challenge to the tender conditions on the ground of not being confined to unemployed persons. It may be noted that the petitioner himself had duly participated in this tender. There is merit in the contention that having participated in the tender and taken his chance and on not being selected, it is not permissible for the petitioner to assail the tender conditions. The terms and conditions of a tender are in the realm of contract and the petitioner having participated in the bid cannot question the said terms and conditions. Reference in this connection may be invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India .
5. Learned counsel for the MTNL, Mr. Piyush Sharma has stated during the course of arguments that as per the present policy announced by the Minister, the allotment of ISD/STD booths has been made freely available and is no longer confined to unemployed youths, Reference is also invited to a public notice where it is stated that PCO’s allotment Committee has been dissolved and that PCO’s are now freely available. Preference is only to the given to widows. dependants, SC/ST, handicapped and Ex-Servicemen for allotment. There is, thus, no reservation for an educated unemployed. There is also no merit in the contention that there has to be any perpetuity in the allotment. Besides, the licence period under the agreement having expired the petitioner cannot claim any vested right to continue. Even if a communication was addressed by the Vigilance Officer of MTNL, the same would be confined to the question of energization of the telephone connection and not to the allotment of the booth which vests entirely with the AIIMS and is governed by the terms of agreement entered into by the petitioner with AIIMS.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has also brought to my attention that there were complaints against the petitioner. This Court had in the circumstances on 26-7-2000, directed the petitioner to make available the complaint book. Learned counsel for the petitioner today submits that the complaint book has been taken away by the respondent/AIIMS earlier. Learned counsel for the respondent /AIIMS has denied this and stated that the petitioner has not, been deliberately producing the complaint book as directed by the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner is still in possession of the booth, with his assets and belongings being there, in which case the allegation of complaint book having taken away does not inspire confidence.
In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall be permitted to remove any of his belongings or furniture in the booth. For this purpose the petitioner can collect his belongings after due notice to the respondent No. 5, the respondents shall be free to unlock the premises and allot the booth to anyone else.