Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/335/2020 on 14 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SPECIAL APPEAL NO.335 of 2020
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Xitij
Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent
no.2.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4.
Date: 14th January, 2021
Coram:Hon'ble Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
ORDER: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
1. The entire issue before this Court is whether the
rejection of the bid offered by the respondents was legally
rejected or not? Admittedly, the bid of the respondent was
rejected ostensibly on the ground that since the number of
partners in the partnership were different in two different
documents submitted by the respondent, the legal status of
the partnership was unclear. However, merely because the
number of partners changed in the partnership firm, the legal
status of the partnership does not change in the eyes of the
law. In fact, the partnership continues to exist as a
partnership firm. Therefore, its nature or legal status does
not undergo any change depending on the number of
partners.
2. Although the learned Single Judge may have relied
upon two judgments passed by a learned Single Bench of this
Court, the fact remains that the learned Single Judge ought
to have considered the issue whether the legal status of a
partnership firm would change with the change in number of
partners or not?
3. This Court is further informed that those two
judgments on which the learned Single Judge has relied upon
are under appeal and the judgments in given by the learned
Single Bench have been stayed by the learned Coordinate
Bench of this Court. However, the learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 informs this Court that since the work order
issued by the Department has not been stayed, the appellant
to whom the work order has been issued, is continuing to
carry out the work. According to learned counsel for
respondent no.1, if such a scenario is permitted, eventually,
it will be a case of fait accompli. Thereby the respondents
would lose the right to challenge the rejection of their bid.
4. Considering the fact that legality of the rejection is
under challenge before this Court, the Department is directed
to stop the appellant (the person in whose favour the work
order is issued) from carrying out any further work in the
project till the next date.
5. Registry is directed to list this case on 08.03.2021
along with SPA Nos.296 of 2020 and 300 of 2020.
__________________________
(Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
_________________
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
Dated : 14.01.2021
JKJ/Ankit
