1 2025:HHC:20457 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10439 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.06.2025 _____________________________________________________ Rajesh Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others …Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No ________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ketan Singh and Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, Navlesh Verma, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. ________________________________________________ Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) Issue notice. Mr. Sushant Keprate, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the Annexure P-2 and P-3 may kindly be set aside and quashed. And respondents may be directed to accept the performance work certificate for technical evaluation in tender bid, Annexure P-6. 2 2025:HHC:20457 (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” 3. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that it was due to some technical glitch that the petitioner could not upload the Work Done Certificate, as a result, whereof, his case was not considered for the tender in question. 4. However, we find from the representation made by the petitioner himself vide Annexure P-5 that it was not due to a technical glitch but it was due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner that the Work Done Certificate was not uploaded. It shall be apt to reproduce the entire contents of the representation, which read as under:- “Subject: Submission of Work Done Certificate for Tender id 2025_PWD_106161_1 Sir I am willing to bring to your attention that during the online tender submission process for above tender ID , I inadvertently missed uploading the Work Done Certificate. I am submitting the certificate through email and kindly request you to consider it as part of my tender documents. I would appreciate your misunderstanding in this matter and request you to consider the submitted certificate. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, RAJESH SHARMA GOVT CONTRACTOR” 3 2025:HHC:20457 5. Now that the petitioner has candidly admitted that it was due to an inadvertent mistake that he could not upload the Work Done Certificate, in such circumstances, obviously, he has no one to blame but himself and not the respondents for his inadvertence qua the mistake on his part. Afterall, a person approaching the Court must have a right with the corresponding duty to the respondents. The petitioner only had the right to participate, provided that he complied with the requirements of the matter. 6. Once the petitioner himself has not uploaded the Work Done Certificate, which is mandatory condition of the tender, he cannot be heard in the tender. 6. Consequently, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of. 30th June, 2025 (Sumit) (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) Judge