Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2025:HHC:29524 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 9799 of 2025 Decided on: 29.08.2025 _________________________________________________________ M/s Viraksh Contractors ....Petitioner Versus
SJPNL & Anr. …Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sood and Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
(oral) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following substantive reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash Annexure P13 dated 28.05.2025, vide which, a fresh tender has been floated for the work which was earlier allotted to the petitioner and that too without deciding the representation preferred by it to the respondents. The floating of the fresh etender be held to be illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. (b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:29524 ) (Annexure P12) and allow it to complete the work at the rates as per the tender now floated. (c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the action of the respondents vide which the work awarded to the petitioner stands terminated because of no fault of it. (d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to decide the claim of losses incurred by the petitioner.”
2. Respondent No. 1Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited (SJPNL) vide advertisement dated 24.08.2018 had invited etenders for providing and laying testing of DI pipes of various dia, construction of RCC manhole chamber and construction of STP 2.00 MLD including O&M of entire scheme for five year under Sewerage Scheme for left out area of Totu in Tehsil & District Shimla, H.P.
3. On 16.01.2019, work was awarded to the petitioner and as per the petitioner, the work was immediately started after handing over the site to the petitioner. The work was to be completed within a period of one year. 4.
It is case of the petitioner that execution of work could not be completed on account of objections raised by the villagers of Bharyal as well as for want of 2
( 2025:HHC:29524 ) forest clearance under Forest Conservation Act, for land use changes and noncompletion of the remaining work of laying DI pipelines was not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner. 5. It is case of the respondents that the said clearance was pending with respect to the Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP), but there was no hindrance in completing rest of the work. It is further submission of the respondents that cost of Sewerage Treatment Plant, as quoted by the petitioner was Rs. 60 Lakhs, whereas, total work awarded to the petitioner was amounting to Rs. 15.93 Crores. 6. The necessary clearance has been received by the Municipal Corporation on 14.03.2025 and thereafter respondent No. 1 had requested the petitioner firstly, to complete the work in terms of the award granted to the petitioner in the year, 2019 and thereafter with escalation of cost/price as per Clause 10CC of award/contract, whereas, according to petitioner, because of high rise in the cost, it was not possible for the petitioner to work even with escalation of the cost/price under Clause 10CC of the award/contract. 3
( 2025:HHC:29524 )
7. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, SJPNL has terminated the contract vide letter dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P11) and issued fresh etender notice dated 28.05.2025 and according to petitioner said etender was issued without deciding its representation preferred against termination of award/contract. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid etender, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing present petition. 9. The description of item, estimated cost and awarded amount (Approx L1) of work awarded to the petitioner on 16.01.2019 is detailed as under : S. No. Description of Item Estimated cost Awarded amount (Approx. L1)
1. Providing and Laying of Sewerage Network Rs. 9,65,96,937/ Rs. 15.93 Cr. 2. Construction of STP of 2 MLD Rs. 3,63,58,500/ Rs. 60 Lacs
3. Providing Online Monitoring System and O&M for 5 years Rs. 92.09 Lacs Rs. 21.60 Lacs
4. Total Rs. 14,21,62,312/ Rs.
16.74 Cr. 4
( 2025:HHC:29524 )
10. Admittedly, some work has been done by the petitioner and most of the bills submitted by the petitioner in that regard have also been cleared and paid to the petitioner, except the pending bills of about 1 crore, which, according to learned counsel for the petitioner are also likely to be disbursed after completing codal formalities for the work already done, in terms of the award. 11. Description of item and estimated cost (Approx.) in new etender issued on 28.05.2025 for remaining work was as under: S. No. Description of Item Estimated cost (Approx.)
1. Remaining part of Sewerage Network Rs. 5.29 Cr. 2. Construction of STP of 2 MLD+Providing Online Monitoring System Rs. 8.77 Cr. 3. O&M for 5 years (Network+STP) Rs. 3.82 Cr. 4. Total Rs. 17.91 Cr. 12. In response to etender dated 28.05.2025, two bidders had participated in the tender process, whereas, according to norms and regulations applicable, three bidders were required mandatorily in first tender, failing 5
( 2025:HHC:29524 ) which, tender was to be reissued for inviting fresh tender and, therefore, with permission of the Court, vide order dated 09.07.2025, notice for retender was again issued on 16.07.2025, wherein, petitioner was also permitted to participate. However, neither petitioner nor anybody else participated in the process and, therefore, because of zero bid etender was cancelled and third time tender has been issued on 01.08.2025 and in response thereto, only one bidder has participated, but petitioner has not participated this time also. 13. It has been submitted that perhaps because of pendency of litigation, no one is coming forward to participate in the tender process to avoid litigation and huge financial losses, on account of litigation. 14.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to complete the remaining part of Sewerage work on the escalated cost, as notified in new tender issued by respondent No. 1, whereas, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case the petitioner intends to continue and complete the work then the parties, as per law, have to abide by the conditions of award already issued in favour of the petitioner in the year, 6
( 2025:HHC:29524 ) 2019, according to which, remaining work has to be completed within the cost as per bid submitted by the petitioner and for delay only + escalation as per Clause 10CC of the award/contract and, therefore, respondent No. 1 is not in a position to accept the offer of the petitioner, as it would be against the financial norms as well as concept of fair and transparent tender process. Further, there may be possibility of bidding by someone for completing the remaining work, at a cost, much below the estimated cost notified in the new tender, as in the year 2019 also, against estimated cost of Rs. 3,63,58,500/ construction of STP of 2 MLD, the petitioner itself had submitted bid for Rs. 60 lacs.
15. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, taking into consideration the totality of the work, the petitioner had submitted the lower bid for construction of STP of 2 MLD.
16. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1, it would not be appropriate for us to direct the respondents to allot remaining work without issuing fresh tender and and also to allow the respondents to complete the process 7
( 2025:HHC:29524 ) of third bid dated 01.08.2025, particularly, keeping in view the public interest and possibility of lower bidder in healthy competition. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is
directed to cancel the process of retender initiated on 01.08.2025 and to issue fresh tender for open, fair and healthy competition inviting bids afresh, wherein, petitioner shall also be at liberty to participate. Issue raised in the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
17. Needless to say all other claims or rights of the parties, which have not been considered by us in present petition, if necessity arises, shall be determined as per terms of the award/contract either with mutual consent of parties or by the appropriate forum, as available under law. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.
( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge
( Sushil Kukreja )
August 29, 2025 Judge (raman) 8