Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/28/2023 on 6 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 28 OF 2023
06TH JUNE, 2023
BETWEEN:
M/s Lakshay Constructions .....Petitioner.
And
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal and Mr.
Rajendra Singh Azad, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned
Brief Holder.
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Imran Ali Khan, learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
In pursuance of our order dated 17.05.2023, Mr.
Anil Kumar, Superintending Engineer, is present in Court. We
have interacted with him. He states that the petitioner had
left the relevant column in its technical bid blank, and did not
indicate expressly that the petitioner had not executed any
work in the past. Therefore, it was assumed that the technical
bid of the petitioner was incomplete and deficient, and that
there was suppression of the relevant information by the
petitioner.
2. In our view, since clause 'L', notice whereof, we
have taken in our order dated 17.05.2023, applied only to
those contractors, who had executed earlier works in the
same department, it could not be assumed by the
respondent- department, if the bidder had left a blank in
response to the query under clause 'L', that he had earlier
executed the works, and did not make disclosure of the same.
Pertinently, no clarification was sought by the respondents
from the petitioner.
3. The Superintending Engineer states that there were
several other bidders whose bids were rejected on the same
ground.
4. In our view, the respondents, firstly, could not have
assumed that there was suppression, and secondly, could
have easily called for a clarification in case, there was any
doubt in the mind of the respondent-department.
5. It is argued by learned counsel today that the
petitioner had been awarded the work in the year 2017,
which he did not execute, and there was an order of
permanently debarment of the petitioner from executing any
works in the respondent- department. It is also argued that
the petitioner had suppressed the said fact.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had represented against the said debarment, and
its representation has not been disposed of till date.
Moreover, the petitioner's registration certificate was renewed
on 19.01.2023, and the registration is valid till 31.06.2025.
Therefore, it could not be argued that the petitioner was
debarred on the date of his participation in the tender, in
question. The respondents have not taken the aforesaid as a
ground for rejection of the petitioner's technical bid.
7. The debarment of the petitioner could not have
been for an indefinite period, and open ended. The fact that
the petitioner's registration has been renewed on 19.01.2023
by the Chief Engineer himself, shows that the respondents
have lifted the debarment of the petitioner. The only purpose
of registration of a contract with the respondent-department
is to enable the registered contractor to participate in bids
invited by the respondent-department for execution of works.
Therefore, in our view, the rejection of petitioner's technical
bid on the aforesaid ground is completely erroneous.
8. The petitioner claims that the petitioner's bid was
lower than that of the successful bidder. The petitioner's
financial bid was not opened, and therefore, on this aspect,
no finding can be returned in these proceedings. The
petitioner's technical bid was rejected as early as on
27.03.2023, whereafter, the work was awarded to respondent
no.5, and he started execution of work in the beginning of
April, 2023. This writ petition was preferred by the petitioner
on 11.04.2023. However, it appears that the same was lying
under defects, and came to be listed before this Court only on
17.05.2023. During this period, the successful bidder has
continued to execute the work.
9. Mr. Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel for
respondent no.5, submits that respondent no.5 has executed
about 20% of the work till the passing of the status quo order
dated 17.05.2023 by this Court.
10. Clearly, there is some delay and laches on the part
of the petitioner in approaching this Court. We are, therefore,
not inclined to interfere with the ongoing works by
respondent no.5. We vacate our order of status quo dated
17.05.2023.
11. We dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the
petitioner to pursue its claims for damages against the
respondent-department.
12. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 06th June, 2023
NISHANT
