S Y Vehicle Testing Services Doiwala Dehradun vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Facts
Two writ petitions were filed before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the award of work orders for establishing Automated Testing Stations (ATS) and the rejection of their Expression of Interest (EoI) applications. The Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand, published an EoI on 14.12.2021 for establishing ATS in Doiwala and Rudrapur regions, following amendments to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Both petitioners, M/S Advitya Techno Solution Pvt Ltd and SY Vehicle Testing Services, submitted EoIs. Respondent No. 5 was awarded the work order for Dehradun district, and Respondent No. 6 for Udham Singh Nagar district. The petitioners' EoIs were subsequently rejected. The petitioners alleged that the EoI conditions were changed to favor Respondent No. 5, that Respondent No. 5 provided incorrect identification numbers obtained after submission, and that Respondent No. 6's lease deed was not registered at the time of application. The State argued that modifications to the EoI, including an extension of the submission deadline to 07.01.2022 and a requirement for a registered lease deed of at least 10 years, were applied to all applicants. The State contended that the petitioners were unsuccessful because they did not submit registered lease deeds or proof of application for registration by the due date.
Held
The Court held that the modifications made to the Expression of Interest (EoI) conditions, including the extension of the submission deadline to 07.01.2022 and the amendment requiring a registered lease deed for a minimum of 10 years as of the application date, were applicable to all applicants and not arbitrary or designed to favor any particular party. The Court found that the petitioners were declared unsuccessful because they failed to submit a registered lease deed or proof of application for registration of the lease deed by the stipulated due date. The Court noted that the Evaluation Committee sought and relied upon the advice of the International Centre for Automative Technology (ICAT), Manesar, in evaluating the applications. The Court concluded that the process adopted by the State Government in awarding the work orders was neither irrational, illegal, nor unreasonable, and that all procedural safeguards were maintained. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the decision and dismissed both writ petitions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the modifications made to the Expression of Interest (EoI) conditions, specifically the extension of the submission deadline to 07.01.2022 and the amendment to Condition 3(g) requiring a registered lease deed for the premises for a period not less than 10 years as on the date of application submission, were arbitrary, illegal, or made to favor Respondent No. 5. 2. Whether the rejection of the petitioners' applications was justified based on their failure to submit a registered lease deed or proof of application for registration by the extended due date. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the EoI conditions were altered to benefit Respondent No. 5, citing the extension of the deadline and the change in lease deed requirements. They argued that Respondent No. 5 provided incorrect identification numbers (Udyam, Adhar, PAN, GST) which were obtained after the application submission date and that Respondent No. 5 was not incorporated as an entity until later. They also alleged that Respondent No. 5 did not have the initial lease for the land when applying. Regarding Respondent No. 6, they argued the lease deed was not registered at the time of application. They claimed the tender process was an 'eyewash' and the authorities were 'hand in glove' with Respondent No. 5. Respondent's arguments (State): The State argued that the modifications, including the extension of the deadline to 07.01.2022 and the amendment to Condition 3(g) regarding the lease deed, were applicable to all applicants and not made to favor any specific party. The State asserted that the Evaluation Committee, with advice from ICAT, found the petitioners unsuccessful because they failed to submit the registered lease deed or proof of application for registration by the due date. The State maintained that the process was rational, legal, and reasonable, with all procedural safeguards followed.
Sections Cited
Section 56, Rule 63(6), Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1273 of 2022
Between:
M/S Advitya Techno Solution Pvt Ltd Through Its Director
……. Petitioner
and State of Uttarakhand & others
…….Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the State/Respondent Nos. 1,3
and 4
: Mr. P.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent no. 2. : Mr. ....Shobhit ….Saharia, …learned counsel for respondent No.5
: Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel
for respondent No.6
with Writ Petition (M/S) No.1722 of 2022 Between:
SY Vehicle Testing Services Doiwala Dehradun
……. Petitioner
and State of Uttarakhan
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.