SPA/181/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2237 UK

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                               AT NAINITAL

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

                                        AND

                THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Mr. ALOK KUMAR VERMA

             SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2021

                              5TH JULY, 2021

BETWEEN:

M/s Uttaranchal Builders                                        .....Appellant.
and

State of Uttarakhand and others.                             ....Respondents

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, the learned Advocate.

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Vikas Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

The appellant has challenged the legality of the

order dated 22.06.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge

in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1102 of 2021, whereby the learned

Single Judge, while issuing notice to respondent No. 4, has

allowed the respondents to award the contract work, but

made it abundantly clear that the award of the contract shall

be subject to the final decision of the case.

2. Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that in case the

contract were awarded, third-party right would arise, which

would only further complicate the issue. According to the

learned Senior Counsel, the grievance of the appellant is,

firstly, that he has been declared as "unresponsive" by

respondent No. 2. Secondly, despite the fact that it is L-1,

the work contract is not being awarded to it. Thirdly, the

appellant apprehends that if the contract were awarded to

respondent No. 4, he may not put his appearance before the

Writ Court, and may linger on the case so as to take the

benefit of time, and to complete the project awarded to him.

Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the

impugned order deserves to be set aside.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, and perused the

impugned order.

4. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly

reveals that the learned Single Judge realizes the urgency of

the matter. In fact, he has clearly directed that "List this

matter immediately after receipt of service report."

Therefore, the apprehension that respondent No. 4 may

linger-on the case, and may turn the case into a case of fait

accompli is highly misplaced. For, once the matter is listed,

and respondent No.4 fails to appear before the learned Writ

Court, the learned Writ Court is within its power to proceed

ex-parte against respondent No. 4.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant is not justified in claiming that the appellant is

the L-1. For, once the appellant is declared as

"unresponsive", the question of it being declared as "L-1"

would not even arise. Further, the other issues, whether the

appellant was illegally declared as "unresponsive", or not?

Whether it should be declared as L-1, or not? And whether

the work contract should be awarded to the appellant, or not,

are issues, which need to be adjudicated by the learned

Single Judge.

6. Although this Court does not find any illegality or

perversity in the impugned order, this Court does request the

learned Single Judge to decide the case as expeditiously as

possible, and preferably within a period of four weeks from

the date of filing of the certified copy of this order.

7. With these directions, the appeal stands disposed

of.

8. No order as to costs.

(RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.)

(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.) Dated: 5th July, 2021 Rathour