Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Tiwari vs Bhopal Sahakari Dugdha Sangh Maryadit on 25 April, 2017
1
W.P.No.5826/17 & W.P.No.5832/17
W.P.No.5826/17 & W.P.No.5832/17
25.4.2017
Shri Parag S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for petitioner.
Heard on admission.
This order shall govern Writ Petition 5826/17 and Writ
Petition No.5832/17.
In both these petitions, the petitioner are existing
Contractors for transportation of milk through insulated vehicle.
Whereas, as per agreement dated 23.10.2015 which is for two
years the petitioner in W.P.5826/2017 has been tendered out the
transportation of milk in insulated vehicle from Bhopal Sahkari
Dugdh Sangh Maryadit, Bhopal to Hoshangabad to all units the
milk packets and to collect empty crates from these centres. The
petitioner in W.P.No.5832/2017 has been tendered out
transportation of milk packets from Bhopal Sahkari Dugdh Sangh
Maryadit, Habibganj Bhopal to Bhauri Sehore, Sujalpur, District
Sehore, vide agreement dated 19.11.2015 valid for two years.
Each of the agreements contain extension clause for one year.
Grievance raised by the petitioner is against the NIT dated
08.04.2017 issued by Bhopal Sahkari Dugdh Sangh Maryadit
inviting application for contract for transportation of milk packets
in insulated vehicles from Bhopal, Sagar and Betul plants to Rural
Services centres for a period of two years.
The NIT is as under :
2
W.P.No.5826/17 & W.P.No.5832/17
**Hkksiky lgdkjh nqX/k la?k e;kZfnr]
Ms;jh IykaV] gchcxat] Hkksiky & 462024
Qksu % ¼0755½ 2478250 ls 253 QsDl % ¼0755½ 2450896 e-
mail : [email protected]
nqX/k ,oa nqX/k inkFkZ ifjogudrkZ dk;Z gsrq f}rh; bZa&fufonk
lwpuk
Hkksiky lgdkjh nqX/k la?k] ds varxZRk Hkksiky] lkxj ,oa cSrwy
Ms;jh la;= ls lapkfyr xzkeh.k foi.ku ekxksZa ij balqysVsM
okguksa }kjk ifjogudrkZ dk;Z gsrq fnukad 21-03-2017 dks izkIr
bZ&fufonk,a fujLr dh tkdj f}rh; bZ&fufonk vkeaf=r dh
tkrh gSA ifjogudrkZ dk;Z vof/k nks o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy,
izHkko'khy gksxh ¼ftls vkilh lgefr ls ,oa dk;Z larks"kizn
gksus ij ,d&,d o"kZ djds rhu o"kZ gsrq c<k;k tk ldrk gSA½
ftu fufonkdkjksa }kjk bl fufonk esa fufonk izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh
og vius HkkSfrd fufonk izi= esa bZ-,e-Mh- ds Mªk¶V fdlh Hkh
dk;kZy;hu fnol esa foi.ku 'kk[kk ls izkIr dj ldrs gSA
ifjogudrkZ fufonk izi= fnukad 24-04-2017 nksigj 12%00 cts
rd vkWuykbu osclkbV http://www.mpeproc.gov.in ls :-
1000@& ds Hkqxrku ij dz; dj ldrs gSA HkkSfrd :i ls Hkjs
gq, fufonk izi= :- 100000@& ¼,d yk[k :i;s ek=½@:-
50000@& ¼ipkl gtkj :i;s ek=½ dk fMek.M Mªk¶V@cSadlZ
^^Hkksiky lgdkjh nqX/k la?k ek;kZfnr^^ ds uke crkSj bZ-,e-Mh- ds
lkFk fnukad 24-04-2017 dks vijkUg 2%00 cts rd la?k
dk;kZy; gchcxat] Hkksiky esa Lohdkj fd, tk;saxsA izkIr
fufonkvksa dh rduhdh vgZrk,a fnukad 25-04-2017 dks izkr%
11%00 cts ls izf'k{k.k dsUnz] Hkksiky nqX/k la?k esa rFkk
rduhdh :i ls lQy fufonkdkjksa dh fu;ekuqlkj Hkkoi=
fnukad 26-04-2017 dks vijkUg 2%00 cts mifLFkr
fufonkdkj@ vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k ds le{k la?k dk;kZy;
gchcxat Hkksiky esa [kksys tk,saxsA fufonk lac/a kh 'krsZa] ekxZ ,oa
foLr`r fooj.k ,e-ih-lh-Mh-,Q- dh osclkbV
http://www.mpcdf.gov.in ij voyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gSA
eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh**
3
W.P.No.5826/17 & W.P.No.5832/17
Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that
during subsisting contract of supply of milk from Bhopal to
Hoshangabad and from Habibganj Bhopal to Bhauri Sehore,
Sujalpur, District Sehore, it is beyond the powers of the Dugdh
Sangh to engage other contractors, however, since the petitioner
fails to establish that the area which has been notified vide
impugned NIT overlap the area where the petitioners operate, no
interference can be caused. Even otherwise, in absence of any
clause in the agreements dated 23.10.2015 and 19.11.2015 of
prohibiting from engaging new contractors for new places or even
the places where the petitioners operate, this Court is of
considered opinion that, the petitioners have no legs to question
the NIT dated 08.04.2017.
In view whereof, no indulgence is caused.
The relief sought by the petitioner at paragraph 7.2 to
"direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to work for
further period of three years as per the clause 34 of the agreement dated 23.10.2015 (dated 19.11.2015 in W.P.No.5832/2017) subject to the satisfactory work" in the considered opinion of this Court is premature because normal tenure of two years is yet to expire in the year 2017 whereafter clause 34 comes into operation.
In view whereof, since no relief can be granted to the petitioner, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand