M/S Disha Associates vs Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2224 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

M/S Disha Associates vs Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas ... on 20 March, 2026

                      Office
                      Notes,
                     reports,
                    orders or
                   proceeding
SL.
        Date           s or                                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   directions
                       and
                   Registrar's
                   order with
                   Signatures
      20.03.2026
                                 WPMB No. 182 of 2026
                                  M/s Disha Associates                                    ------Petitioner.
                                                                 Versus
                                  Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam and others.
                                                                                              -Respondents

                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

1. Sri Prabhat Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam.

3. The submission is that after the respondents discovered that the petitioner was L-1 bidder, they manufactured a ground for rejecting the financial bid to the effect that the petitioner had not made disclosure of liability of Rs. 54,09,412.06 in respect of an on-going project (03 MLD STP Kaulagarh Protection Work).

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said work was well within the knowledge of the respondents as the same was granted to the petitioner by the respondents. It is further urged that the said work was kept in abeyance by the respondents themselves in view of lack of financial approval. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Office Order dated 09.09.2025, which states that work has been kept in abeyance because of lack of financial approval. Further submission is that as the work was kept in abeyance, therefore, it would not fall under the category of on-going work and for the said reason also, the action taken by the respondents for rejecting the bid of the petitioner is wholly illegal.

5. The matter requires consideration.

6. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 5 & 6 by speed post.

7. Steps to be taken within three days.

8. Counter-affidavit(s) be filed by the respondents on or before the next date.

9. List, along with WPMB No. 180 of 2026, in the week commencing 20.04.2026.

10. Till the next date of listing, in case work order has yet not been issued, the same shall not be issued.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 20.03.2026 20.03.2026 Rathour