Gujarat High Court
Brijal Bharatbhai Shah vs Municipal Commissioner & on 16 January, 2015
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sonia Gokani
C/SCA/18013/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18013 of 2014
================================================================
BRIJAL BHARATBHAI SHAH....Petitioner(s)
Versus
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIRAL R MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 16/01/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) The petitioner has challenged a condition imposed by respondent no.1 Vadodara Municipal Corporation while inviting tenders for awarding contract for printing of the diaries for the year 2015.
The relevant condition requires the tenderer to be part of a panel prepared by the Department of Information, Government of Gujarat. Though the English version refers to the panel, the Gujarati advertisement refers to the word "Manya" which would translate to "approval". According to the petitioner, there is neither any such panel in existence nor has the Information department made a list of approved agencies. Under the Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/18013/2014 ORDER circumstances, no tenderer could have fulfilled such a condition. The petitioner relied on a communication dated 12.12.2014 which is in the form of answers received by him in response to the queries raised under the RTI Act in which the concerned department has conveyed to him that presently there is no panel for printing in existence.
As per respondent no.1, four agencies fulfill the requirement. However, in what manner such requirement was satisfied, is not elaborated in reply. Respondent no.1 shall file additional affidavit clarifying these aspects with a special focus on whether the requirement was of being empaneled or being approved and whether there is any existence of panel or list of approved agencies maintained by Department of Information.
Though served, respondent no.2 who is awarded the contract has not responded. At this stage, we prevent respondent no.1 from making any payment pursuant to the contract awarded to the said agency. S.O. to 27.1.2015.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) raghu Page 2 of 2