Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19876 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10176 of 2025. Date of decision: 25.06.2025. Niraj Sharma …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs: “(i). That the notice inviting bids/expression of interest dated nil contained in Annexure P-2 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to invite fresh Expression of interest by removing the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19876 ) ambiguities and permit the petitioner to participate in the process by issuing writ of mandamus. (iii) That in the alternative, it is also prayed that the tender for the said work be atleast awarded for a considerable period so that the amount invested by the bidder can be recovered in a profitable manner and the livelihood can be sustained for considerable period in the interest of justice.” 2. The respondents invited online bids/Expression of Interest from the Pharmacists duly registered with Pharmacy Council of H.P. to outsource manpower to run and manage ‘Jan Aushadhi Generic Drug Store at SLBS Government Medical College and Hospital, Mandi at Nerchowk. The last date for Expression of Interest/bidding and submission of documents was fixed as on 25.06.2025. 3. It is not in dispute that it is only after having submitted the bid that the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the reliefs, as aforesaid and would urge that there are ambiguities in the tender process for which the petitioner has already filed a detailed representation. 4. Given the fact that the petitioner has firstly participated in the tender process and has only thereafter filed the instant petition, the same is clearly barred by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19876 ) 5. Apart from that, we are at a complete loss to appreciate as to why the petitioner has now filed the instant petition, that too, challenging the conditions of the tender and what prevented him to approach this Court assailing the tender conditions well-within the time, before submitting his bid. Obviously, the course of action adopted by the petitioner is clearly far from what meets the eye and definitely malafide. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner would urge that the eligibility conditions are vague and the respondents have deliberately provided ambiguous clauses without any reference giving them a leverage to use the said clauses against or in favour of any bidder as per their whims. It is further urged that the respondents are acting totally against the public policy and the whole process adopted by the respondents is biased just to give undue benefit to their favourities. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner could not elaborate on such pleas which on the face of it are delightfully vague. If the petitioner was really serious and aggrieved by the conditions of the tender, he ought not to have submitted his bid and have challenged the entire process, rather than submitting his bid and thereafter assailing the action of the respondents. 8. The petitioner voluntarily participated in the tender process after thoroughly examining the terms and conditions and by 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:19876 ) submitting the bid, the petitioner accepted the rules or procedure governing the tender, including terms thereof. Once, the petitioner participated without any objection in the tender process, he effectively acknowledged the validity of the process. Therefore, raising objections, at this stage, prevent him to circumvent an unfavourable outcome. 9. Clearly, in the given facts and circumstances, as already observed above, the petitioner is estopped from filing the instant petition. 10. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed in limine, along with pending application, if any. 11. However, before parting, we need to observe that this was a fit case where costs ought to have been imposed on the petitioner. But, since no formal notice was issued to the respondents and taking into account the persuasive submissions of Ms. Seema K. Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioner, we refrain from doing so, however, with a clear warning to the petitioner that in case he indulges in such misadventure, the Court may not be so magnanimous in future. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) Judge 25th June, 2025. (krt)