High Court · 2009

AD Choudhury, learned counsel for writ petitioner. The Misc Cases have been filed by the aforesaid respondents in the writ petition praying for vacation/modification/alteration of the interim order dated 2.9.09 passed in WP(C) No.3699/09 whereby and where-under the respondent nos.1 to 4 therein were directed not to obtain any vehicle, or utilize the vehicles, w hich have already been obtained, from respondent nos.5 to 10 therein, without th e leave of this Court. Mr Mahmud, learned counsel for the applicant in MC 2598/09, referring to the averments made in that application has submitted that though the applicant is the sister of an employee of the BSNL namely Sri Dipak Kalita but she having not maintaining any relation with his brother since 1989 and is living separatel y at Chenikuthi, Guwahati after her marriage, there cannot be any challenge to t he allotment of vehicle in her favour made by respondent nos.1 to 4 on the groun d that she is a close relative of an employee of BSNL. Mr K. Das, learned counsel for the applicant in MC 2602/09, has submitte d that though the applicant has married daughter of a Divisional Engineer of the BSNL, she has been ostracized by her father because of the marriage and is not maintaining any relationship with the in-laws. Further, at the time the allotmen t was given, his father-in-law was not in service. It has, therefore, been submi tted that the grounds on which such allotment order has been challenged by the p etitioner are non-existent in case of the said applicant. Mr N. Dutta, learned senior counsel for applicants in MC 2656/09, has su bmitted that 4(four) vehicles were allotted to the applicants/respondent nos.9 & 10 vide orders of allotment dated 27.5.09 & 24.8.09. It has further been submit ted that the allotment of the applicants made vide order dated 27.5.09 has not b een challenged by the writ petition and the allotment of the said applicants mad e vide order dated 24.8.09 being of temporary nature as is revealed from the aff idavit-in-opposition filed by respondent nos.1 to 4 in the writ petition, the or der dated 2.9.09 passed by this court may be vacated in so far as the applicants are concerned. Mr Pathak, learned counsel for BSNL, has submitted that in view of certa in allegations made by different quarters, an enquiry was conducted by the BSNL authority and in such enquiry it was found that the respondent nos.5 to 7 are th e close relatives of certain employees of the BSNL. Hence, the allotments made i n their favour have been cancelled, the same being contrary to the terms and con ditions of the NIT dated 29.1.09. It has further been submitted that in the said enquiry, however, nothing could be found against the respondent nos.8 to 10 tha t they have any relation with any employee of the BSNL. Mr Pathak, therefore, su bmits that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondents, a submi ssion has also been made for vacating the interim order in so far as the respond ent nos.8 to 10 are concerned. Mr AD Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has submitted that it is a fact that the petitioner has not challenged the allotment order dat ed 27.5.09 in so far as the applicants in MC 2656/09(respondent nos.9 and 10) ar e concerned. Mr Choudhury, further submits that since vide order dated 24.8.09 t he vehicles allotted to the respondent nos.9 and 10 are on temporary basis, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against them. It has further been submitted that since the allotment made in favour of respondent nos.5 to 7 has been cance lled by the BSNL authority after enquiry, the existence of the interim order dat ed 2.9.09 no way affect those respondents. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the order o f allotment dated 27.5.09 allotting the vehicle in favour of the respondent nos. 5 to 8 by respondent nos.1 to 4 has been challenged on the ground that the claus e 8 of the NIT dated 29.1.09 has been violated. The clause 8 of the NIT is quote d below: (cid:28)8. Debarring Conditions:- (i) No vehicle should be supplied having registration in the Name of employee of BSNL or their close relative and a Certificate to this effect be gi ven on the body of bill while submitting claim. (ii) No sub-contracting of the Service allotted is permissible by BSN L. The near relatives of all BSNL employees either directly recruited or on depu tation are prohibited from participation in this tender. The tampering of meter reading, vehicle usage timings, overwriti ng of Summary/log sheet and misbehaviour of driver while on duty shall be viewed (iii) seriously, leading to even cancellation of contract. (iv) Bidder shall not engage any person below 18 years of age. (cid:29) The writ petitioner though in the body of the writ petition has made ave rments challenging the order of allotment dated 24.8.09 allotting the vehicle in favour of respondent nos.9 & 10, no prayer has, however, been made in the writ petition challenging such order. Still then, since in the body of the writ petit ion such order has been challenged, the non-mentioning of the same in the prayer may not affect the challenge made. However, as noticed above, it has been conte nded by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that since the order dated 2 4.8.09 has been passed as a temporary measure, the writ petitioner cannot have a ny grievance against such order. Clause 8 of NIT dated 29.1.09 provides that no contract for supply of ve hicle with a person who has a close relative working in the BSNL should be enter ed into. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent nos.5 to 8 have clos e relatives working in the BSNL. Such an allegation, as it appears from the affi davit filed by respondent nos.1 to 4 in the writ petition, was found to be true. The respondent nos.1 to 4 in the affidavit has also stated on oath that the ord er of allotment issued in favour of respondent nos.5 to 7 has been cancelled. Th e BSNL in the said enquiry has found that no close relative of respondent nos.8 to 10 is working in it. In view of the above, the interim order dated 2.9.2009 stands vacated in so far as respondent nos.8 to 10 are concerned, since the BSNL in the affidavit -in-opposition has taken the stand that the order of allotment made in favour of respondent nos.5 to 7 has already been cancelled. The Misc Cases are accordingly disposed of.