2025:UHC:2193-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Writ Petition (M/B) No.415 of 2024 25 March, 2025 Ms. Rajendra Singh Chuphal --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no.6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Mr. Alok Mahra J.) Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued by respondent no.2 on 02.03.2024 for various road works. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he fulfilled all the requisite conditions as mentioned in the NIT and have submitted his tender for work, namely, ‘Upgradation of Ogla-Bhaglehura MR to Pasma- Hanseshwar M/R’. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though, he fulfilled all the eligible conditions, but bid of the petitioner was declared technically non- responsive vide order dated 18.08.2024 passed by 1 2025:UHC:2193-DB respondent no.5 while the bid of respondent nos.6 and 7 were declared to be technical responsive; that, the petitioner moved representation against the declaring his technical bid as non-responsive, his representations too were rejected on 22.08.225 and 25.08.2024. 3. The main ground canvassed by the petitioner is that his technical bid has been declared non- responsive only on the ground that Methodology/ Bar Chart is not proper and is not as per clause 4.2 (k) of Section 2 of Instruction Bidder of the Standard Bidding Document. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 would submit that the bid of the petitioner has rightly been declared technically non-responsive and his representations too have been rejected as ‘methodology was not proper and secondly ongoing works mismatched in the certificate’. He would further submit that the work contract regarding the tender impugned in the present writ petition has already been awarded and approximately more than 30% work has already been completed, therefore, the interference of this Hon’ble Court, at this juncture, will hamper the work of the road project. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the 2 2025:UHC:2193-DB petitioner would submit that there is no illustration given in the standard bidding documents as to how Bar Chart is to be prepared and he has submitted complete Bar Chart; whereas, the respondents/department have wrongly awarded the tender contract to respondent no.6, as he suppressed material facts while submitting his tender. 6. Keeping in view of the above facts, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is at liberty to file a suit seeking damages against the respondents/department and if he succeeds in his suit, damages shall be recovered from the personal salary of the Officers responsible for declaring him technically non-responsive. 7. Be that as it may, since the tender has been awarded to respondent no.6 and the fact that more than 30% work has already been completed, therefore, the writ petition is disposed off with liberty as aforesaid. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 25.03.2025 BS 3