Nempal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Held

The Court held that since the petitioner's representation had not been decided, it was appropriate to direct the District Magistrate, Amroha, to consider the grievances raised. Without entering into the merits of the alleged discrepancies in respondent no.7's bid, the Court found it necessary for the District Magistrate to address the petitioner's concerns. The Court directed the District Magistrate to consider the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks of receiving the order. Crucially, the Court mandated that before making a final decision, the District Magistrate must provide due notice and an opportunity of hearing to respondent no.7, and any objections raised by respondent no.7 during this process must be duly dealt with in a reasoned and speaking order. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must decide representations filed by aggrieved parties within a reasonable time, affording natural justice to all concerned.

Facts

The petitioner, Nempal Singh, challenged the award of a contract for manpower supply to respondent no.7. Both the petitioner and respondent no.7 were declared successful in the financial bid, with similar rates. During a document check before a computerized draw of lots, the petitioner identified several alleged deficiencies in respondent no.7's bid. These included an incorrect license (Shop and Commercial Establishment Act license instead of one under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970), a potentially fraudulent balance sheet not reflected on the GST website, absence of an affidavit regarding non-pendency of criminal cases, non-compliance with balance sheet certification and turnover requirements, and insufficient experience. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.08.2021 to the District Magistrate, Amroha, detailing these issues, but no decision had been taken.

Key Issues

1. Whether the District Magistrate, Amroha, has a legal obligation to consider the petitioner's representation regarding alleged irregularities in the award of a manpower supply contract to respondent no.7. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that respondent no.7's bid was not acceptable due to several material deficiencies, including possessing an incorrect license, a potentially fraudulent balance sheet, lack of required affidavits, non-compliance with financial conditions, and insufficient experience. The petitioner contended that these issues were brought to the attention of the District Magistrate through a representation, and a decision was pending. The petitioner sought a direction for the District Magistrate to consider and decide this representation in accordance with the law. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State or respondent no.7 regarding the merits of the petitioner's claims or the obligation to decide the representation. The counsel for respondent no.3 and respondent no.7 offered no plausible explanation for the delay in deciding the representation.