Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 6]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sanjay Shrivastav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2020

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   W.P. No. 23957/2019
                                             Sanjay Shrivastav vs. State of MP

                             Gwalior, Dated :14/07/2020

                                      Shri Rameshwar Rawat Counsel for the applicant

                                      Shri Nitin Agrawal Counsel for the State

                                      Shri Prashant Sharma for for the intervenors.

                                      Heard finally through Video Conferencing.

                                      This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

                             been filed seeking the following relief(s) :-

                                         1.

That the order Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed.

2. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.

It is submitted that Request for Proposal For Establishing, Operating and Maintaining (in short RFP) was issued for running the Lok Sewa Kendras. However, by the impugned order dated 21-5- 2019, a condition has been changed and firms having MSME registration have been exempted from paying EMD provided a valid MSME/NSIC registration certificate is submitted and that cannot be done.

The Counsel for the intervenor has challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition. It is the case of the intervenor, that the petitioner has not submitted his request for Proposal, therefore, he has no locus standi to file this petition. Digitally signed by PRINCEE BARAIYA Date: 15/07/2020 13:08:38

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 23957/2019 Sanjay Shrivastav vs. State of MP Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties.

Undisputedly, the petitioner has not submitted his bid in pursuance of RFP for running the Lok Sewa Kendra, Shivpuri. Further, it is claimed by the petitioner, that in the year 2012, he was granted contract and to substantiate the said submission, the petitioner has filed a copy of the agreement executed between the Secretary, District E-Governance Society Shivpuri and AISECT as Annexure P/3. Thus, it is clear that the claim of the petitioner that he was awarded contract in the year 2012 is false but in fact the contract was awarded to AISECT. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, that by letter dated 30-7-2012, AISECT had authorized the petitioner to act as Centre Manager of Lok Seva Kendra, Shivpuri, therefore, in fact the contract was awarded to the petitioner. Unfortunately, the submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The successful bidder was AISECT and the agreement was also executed between Secretary, District E- Governance Society Shivpuri and AISECT. The petitioner was merely authorized by AISECT to act as Centre Manager. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner was the successful bidder and contract was awarded to him for running the Lok Seva Kendra Shivpuri in the year 2012.

Digitally signed by PRINCEE BARAIYA Date: 15/07/2020 13:08:38

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 23957/2019 Sanjay Shrivastav vs. State of MP Further the petitioner had filed I.A. No. 6126 of 2019 seeking permission to delete the name of the petitioner and to implead AISECT as Petitioner. In this application also, it was admitted by the petitioner, that the agreement was executed in the year 2012 between the Secretary, District E-Governance Society Shivpuri and AISECT and the petitioner was merely authorized by AISECT to carry out the work on behalf of AISECT. Although this application was withdrawn by order dated 10-1-2020, but the fact of the case is that the petitioner was neither awarded any contract in the year 2012, nor he has submitted his bid in pursuance of RFP in question. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition, thereby challenging any change of condition of RFP, because the petitioner cannot be said to be the sufferer of the change of condition giving rise to any cause of action in his favor.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi to file the same.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Digitally signed by PRINCEE BARAIYA Date: 15/07/2020 13:08:38