( 2025:HHC:11224 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6241 of 2025 a/w CWP No. 6243 & 6251/2025 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 (1) CWP No. 6241/2025 Mangani Ram ...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. ...Respondents (2) CWP No. 6243/2025 Mangani Ram ...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. ...Respondents (3) CWP No. 6251/2025 Mangani Ram ...Petitioner Versus HPSFDCL & Anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Hon’ble Mr Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. ______________________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dikken Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:11224 ) Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) The instant petitions have been for grant of the following substantive relief:- “That all the acts of the respondents with regard to tendered work from 29.03.2025 up to this date may very kindly be declared as null and void by quashing any orders passed with regard to the tender in question and the respondents may kindly be directed to take forward the tender opening process in accordance with law.” 2. It is not in dispute that the tender of the petitioner has not been opened by the respondents by taking shelter of Clause 53 of the conditions of tender/auction for various extractions work (felling of trees, conversion of trees engraving and haulage of forest produce from forest to roadside deport including stacking. 3. Clause 53 of the aforesaid conditions of tender/auction reads as under:- “53. Labour Supply Mate(s) who fail to execute the work in hand within the prescribed time will not be eligible to participate in subsequent tenders in any division till such time the allotted works are fully executed unless allowed by the Director concerned based on justifiable circumstances. To this effect, he will have to furnish division wise detail of his performance duly certified by DM concerned at the time of tenders…….” 4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has two works in hand and the completion dates of such works are 26.05.2025 & 26.05.2026, respectively. 3 ( 2025:HHC:11224 ) 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the work in hand of the petitioner, which is to be completed by 26.05.2025 is not even half way through and for this purpose, the petitioner has already been issued notices repeatedly. 6. Be that as it may, Clause 53 of the conditions clearly provides for exclusion of the Labour Supply Mate(s) from consideration of work only in case they fail to execute the work in hand within the prescribed time. However, here the prescribed period is yet to expire. Therefore, clearly the respondents could not have excluded the petitioner in the tender process. 7. Accordingly, we find merit in these petitions and the same are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the tender(s) of the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) Judge 25th April, 2025 (raman)