High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79512-DB [Reserved] Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11460 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner :- M/S Divya Enterprises And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankush Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of an order made in favour of respondent No.5 by way of which the same respondent has been granted a tender for supply of items in pursuance of an advertisement having tender I.D. No. ID 2024-NNKAN-893535-1 uploaded on 09.02.2024. 3. Furthermore, a prayer has been made to quash the agreement executed by the respondent no.4 in favour of respondent No.5 for supply of Bhusa, Chokar and Hara Chara till 31.03.2025 and also with the prayer of mandamus seeking a direction to the concerning respondent to allocate the said tender in favour of the petitioner No.1. 4. At the very outset it has been submitted by counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the present writ petitioners have earlier approached this Court in Writ C No.5471 of 2024 which was dismissed on 29.02.2024. 5. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 29.02.2024 demonstrates that the said writ petition was preferred seeking a writ of mandamus therein, restraining the respondents authorities from interfering in the work of the petitioner’s firm in terms of a contract dated 20.06.2023 till completion of the period of agreement which as per the petitioner was 19.06.2024. However, it was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent in that petition that the tender of the said agreement itself notified that the same was for the financial year 2023-24 and as such the grievance and submissions of the petitioner was misplaced. 6. Considering the same this Court vide order dated 29.02.2024 dismissed the said petition being devoid of merit. This Court noted the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the outstanding dues of the petitioner, in pursuance of the work already done by him, shall be made. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. The factual controversy raised in the present writ petition is that the respondent Nagar Nigam vide advertisement dated 09.02.2024 again invited application for supply of Bhusa, Chokar and Hara Chara at contracted rate for cattle catching department, Municipal Corporation, Kanpur Nagar for the financial year 2024-25 and the said work was to be continued till 31.03.2025. In pursuance of this advertisement, four firms including that of the petitioner submitted tenders. The tender committee evaluated the bids in pursuance of the requirement of the contract on 19.02.2024 and as such found that the firm i.e. respondent No.5 to be eligible for grant of the said contract. The contract was granted to it after making the necessary evaluation on 19.02.2024. 8. The challenge to grant of contract to the respondent No.5 is primarily based on the ground that the firm of the respondent No.5 is a newly constituted firm and its PAN has recently been issued on 27.12.2023. Further more, the GST registration number has also been issued on 06.01.2024 and therefore in pursuance of clause No.7 and 8 of the tender, the respondent No.5 does not have the necessary eligibility to have applied or to have been granted the contract by the respondent Nagar Nigam. Apart from the above technical ground, it has also been averred in the writ petition that the respondent Nagar Nigam is acting in collusion with respondent No.5. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 to 4 has supplied detailed written instructions, dated 09.04.2024, under the signature of Chief Veterinary Officer, Kanpur Nagar which are taken on record. 10. A perusal of the written instruction dated 09.04.2024 furnished by Veterinary Officer, Kanpur Nagar demonstrate that the case, as set up by the petitioner, is incorrect. It has been specifically and clearly mentioned in the said instructions that the firm namely M/s Arohi Enterprises (respondent no.5) was initially registered on 03.11.2022 as a proprietorship firm in which one Sri Neeraj Kumar Niranjan was the sole proprietor/Manager of the firm and accordingly the PAN was issued in his name only as the sole proprietor of the said firm. The PAN at that point of time was ALVPN4035A. 11. On 19.12.2023 the sole proprietor of the firm changed the status of the firm from a proprietorship firm to that of a partnership firm as one Sri Deepandra Singh Patel was engaged as the partner of the said firm. As such the same firm was registered as a partnership firm on 05.01.2024 with GST registration No.09ALVPN4035A1Z1. 12. It is also specifically stated in the instructions that the said firm is managed by Sri Neeraj Kumar Niranjan himself since November 2023. Initially Sri Neeraj Kumar Niranjan was working as the proprietor of the 2 firm whereas presently the status stands changed to that of the partner of the firm. The said firm has a single bank account since November 2023. 13. Furthermore it has been submitted in the instruction that on change of the firm from a proprietorship firm to that of the partnership firm, the assets of the firm, its past experience, its past liabilities and other assets were specifically declared and recorded and as such only the status of the firm has changed with no substantive incorporation of a new firm. 14. Lastly, it has been submitted in the instruction that the respondent No.5 has regularly supplied the cattle food to the Nagar Nigam since January 2023 and the work conducted by the said firm is satisfactory with no allegation or complaint against the same firm. 15. In addition to the same the respondent No.5 has initially disclosed the financial reports of the firm for financial 2023-24 and 2022-2023 alongwith statement of the turnover of the said firm, its GST returns, TDS submitted by the firm etc. As such the change in GST number and the PAN number of the firm is only a technical change which has occurred in pursuance of the change of the status of the said firm from a proprietorship to a partnership firm. 16. Placing reliance upon the said instructions it has been vehemently argued by counsel for the respondents that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are misplaced and unwarranted and accordingly the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 17. We have gone through the entire records produced before us including the outcome of the earlier petition at the behest of the present petitioner which was decided vide order dated 29.02.2024 by this Court. 18. A perusal of the pleadings made in the present writ petition discloses that the petitioner has relied upon clause 7 and 8 of the tender advertisement in order to challenge the validity of the contract granted to the respondent No.5 by the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar. 19. However, primarily the allegation raised on behalf of the petitioner with regard to a premature firm being granted the tender by respondents is misconceived and unfounded as perusal of the written instruction placed before us demonstrate and establishes the fact that the respondent No.5 is a experienced firm which is engaged in the same work since long. 20. Earlier the respondent No.5 had been supplying the same cattle food to Nagar Nigam, Jhansi and accordingly the allegations of the firm been inexperienced on the ground of its new GST registration or a recently obtained PAN is misconceived. 3 21. It is apparent from the record that on the inclusion of the partner in the firm, merely the status of the firm has changed from a proprietorship firm to that of a partnership firm whereas neither the substantive nature of work of the firm has been changed or modified nor it appears to us that any material alteration was made in that firm for the purpose of applying or for the purpose of grant of the tender in favour of the respondent No.5 firm. 22. Accordingly, the allegations of the petitioner are misconceived being based on no substance. 23. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.05.2025 Aditya Tripathi Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4