Services vs . State Of H.P. And Ors. A/W
2023 Latest Caselaw 8564 HP

M/s Nuvision Commercial and Escort Services Vs. State of H.P. and ors. a/w

.

connected matter.

CWP No. 2539 of 2023 a/w CWP Nos. 2502 & 2540 of 2023

27.06.2023 Present: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.

Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate Generals, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondents No. 1 to 3/State.

Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondent

No. 4.

Mr. Pawan Kumar (JOA) O/o MS Mandi, Kalpana Sihal (JOA), CMO Office, Mandi, Desh Bandher

(ACC F2A), O/o CMO Mandi, are present in person.

We have heard the matter for a considerable long time.

Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed reply to the petition and in

para-11 of preliminary submissions of the same, they have

specifically stated that the objection of the petitioner firm " was

considered and examined by the Technical Committee whereupon

it was observed that as per the judgment dated 22.10.2018 of the

Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 27090 of

2018 (furnished by the petitioner) it has been mentioned that the

blacklisting of M/s Rakshak Securitas Pvt. Ltd. was to an extent

of debarring the said firm from participating in the tender process

of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh for the next six months, as

per the letter dated 13.08.2018, on the ground of its failure for

depositing the physical EMD in a time bound manner, after

opening of the financial bid as per the undertaking given by it in

.

the matter, and as such, the decision for the blacklisting of the firm

for the purpose of participating in the present tender process,

could not be taken, moreso, when the firm concerned was also not

debarred for that specific purpose at the time of applying for the

present tender. There was no blanket ban nor blacklisting of the

said firm." Such averments are also reiterated in para-5 of the

reply on merits and if that was not enough, same averments

appear to have been reiterated in para-2 to the reply filed by these

respondents to CMP No. 5064 of 2023." However, when the

aforesaid respondents were asked to produce the record pertaining

to the records of the Technical Committee, wherein the objection

of the petitioner firm was considered and examined as per

affidavit, they miserably failed to produce the same, but candidly

conceded that there is no record whatsoever to this effect.

Then, on what basis the affidavit came to be filed in this Court is

not forthcoming.

Confronted with this, learned Additional

Advocate General prays for and is granted a week's time to obtain

instructions.

List on 06.07.2023.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 27thJune, 2023(sushma)