WPMS/2746/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 916 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA


             WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2746 OF 2022

                             3RD APRIL, 2023

Between:

Praveen Toliya                               ......          Petitioner

and

State of Uttarakhand & others                ......         Respondents


Counsel for the petitioner        :   Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondents       :   Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
                                      Advocate General for State of
                                      Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1 &
                                      3

                                  :   Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned
                                      counsel for respondent No. 2



The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)


             The petitioner has preferred this writ petition

to assail the technical disqualification of the petitioner in

respect of the tender notice dated 09.09.2022, issued by

respondent No. 2.            The petitioner sought a declaration

that the petitioner's bid be declared as technically

qualified, and sought the opening of his financial bid.

The petitioner also challenged the subsequent tender

notice dated 22.10.2022, issued by respondent No. 2.
                               2




2)         Leaned counsel for the respondent states that

the tender notice dated 09.09.2022, in respect whereof

the petitioner was technically disqualified was withdrawn

and, therefore, the petitioner had no surviving cause of

action so far as the petitioner's disqualification in respect

of the said tender notice is concerned. He submits that

in respect of the subsequent tender notice dated

22.10.2022, the respondent authorities have proceeded

to process the tender, and award the same to a third

party.     The   petitioner   did   not   participate   in   the

subsequent tender invited by the subsequent tender

notice dated 22.10.2022.


3)         Aforesaid being the position, in our view, this

writ petition has become infructuous, and, is disposed of,

as such.     The respondents should refund the security

deposit of the petitioner, if not already refunded, within

two weeks.



                                          ________________
                                          VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.


                                    _________________
                                    ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 3rd APRIL, 2023 Negi