M/S Byas Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd vs State Of H.P. & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1687 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWP No. 1021 of 2021.

Decided on : 5th March, 2021.

.

M/s Byas Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P. & others ....Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the Petitioner: Ms. Seema Kaushal Guleria, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Mr. Ashwani K.

Sharma, and, Mr. Narender Guleria, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Dy. A.G.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral) .

Heard. Despite the petitioner being declared as L-1, the

respondents declined to accept its offer, to secure, the awarded

works, on the ground, that the per centum of service charges, as

quoted by the afore successful bidder, were proportionately, higher

than the one(s), as, became quoted for the afore purpose, by, the

awardees, vis-a-vis, alike works, and, appertaining to other CHC(s)

concerned, falling within the State of Himachal Pradesh. A perusal of

the relevant records, as, placed on record by the learned Additional

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

...2...

Advocate General, discloses, that the service charges, as, quoted by

.

the successful bidders, at other CHC(s), and, who were awarded

works, alike the ones, canvassed by the petitioner, were upto 13.28%.

Hence, consequently, when the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, states at the bar, that she has instructions to offer 10.11%,

as, service charges, for the advertised works, if they become awarded

to the petitioner, thereupon, since, service charges, even upto a per

centum alike therewith, and, also even upto 13.11 per centum

became accepted by the respondents, hence, parity of treatment is to

be afforded to the petitioner rather along with the afore successful

bidders.

2. Moreover, also when the respondents, in order to

ensure, the making, of, rebidding process, shall become

unnecessarily entailed with the necessity of theirs re-expending

apposite therewith expenses, hence, the respondents are directed to

accept the afore made submission at the bar, by the counsel for

petitioner, on instructions meted to her, by the petitioner, and,

further they are directed, to, award the advertised works to the

petitioner. However, it is made clear that the writ petitioner, shall

ensure, that the afore submission, as, made on his/its behalf, by its

...3...

counsel, becomes meted completest compliance by it throughout the

.

tenure of contract, as, becomes awarded to it. Lastly, the

respondents are also directed to ensure that the advertised works are

awarded to the petitioner hence within one week from today. With

the afore observations, the extant writ petition stands disposed of.

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

Copy dasti.

(Sureshwar Thakur)

Judge

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge.

5th March, 2021.

(jai)