_______________________________________________________ vs H.P. Housing & Urban Development ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 395 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                                CWP No. 3250 of 2020




                                                                           .
                                Date of decision: 07.01.2021





    _______________________________________________________
    M/S A.G. Construction Co.                       .....Petitioner





                               Versus

    H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority & others
                                                     ...Respondents
    __________________________________________________________





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1
    __________________________________________________
    For the petitioner
                        r        :      Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, through

                                        Video Conferencing.

    For the respondents:                Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, for
                                        respondents No. 1 & 2, through Video


                                        Conferencing.

                                        Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, for
                                        respondents No. 3 & 4, through Video




                                        Conferencing.





    L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice                   (Oral)

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the

respondents declaring respondent No. 3 as L-1, as he has neither

uploaded the tender form nor has fulfilled the terms and conditions

of the Tender Notification (Annexure P-2).

2. At this stage, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 &

2 submits that the respondents may be permitted to proceed with

re-tendering process.

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and

have gone through the entire file carefully.

.

4. We are of the opinion that after inviting objections

from the petitioner, the respondents should consider the same

and in case, a patent error is found in the tender process, the

same should be rectified. If there is a patent error in the tender

process and if the same is not removed/rectified, it will not be

appropriate to the respondents to go for re-tendering process. In

fact, the respondents must proceed with the earlier tender process.

5. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to

dispose of this writ petition directing respondents No. 1 & 2 to

proceed further with earlier tender process and to conclude the

tender proceedings as per the earlier Tender Notification (Annexure

P-2).

6. The petition is acco0rdingly disposed of, as indicated

hereinabove alongwith pending application(s), if any.

(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice.

    January 7, 2021                           (Ravi Malimath)
     (hemlata)                                     Judge.