2025:HHC:8680-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 12537 of 2024 Date of decision: 01.04.2025 Sahil & Anr. …Petitioners Versus HPSEB Ltd. & Ors. ...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 Petitioners: Mr. Ram Lal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) On 26.03.2025, the Court passed the following order:- “The respondents are directed to produce the original letter, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure R-1 at page No. 77 of paper book alongwith diary and dispatch register of the relevant time on the ext date of hearing.” 2. Today, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has produced the record. We have tallied the same and found that it is in consonance with the terms of Annexure R- 1 at page No. 77. Records are ordered to be returned. 2 2025:HHC:8680-DB 3. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned Annexure P-11 qua non-acceptance of the tender of the petitioners. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the tender of the petitioners to provide the transportation facility to the shift duty staff under Gaj Power House Division, HPSEBL Gharoh, District Kangra, H.P. for the year 2024-2025 according to the rates as mentioned in the latest tender form submitted by them to the respondents in pursuance to the advertisement dated 26.10.2024 (Annexure P- 10)” 4. We have gone through the records and find that even though the petitioners’ tender has been rejected on the ground that their services and conduct was not found satisfactory, however, there is nothing on record to substantiate this fact especially when the respondents themselves conceded that no inquiry was ever conducted against the petitioners so as to reach the aforesaid conclusion. 5. The decision to not accept the tender of the petitioners taken by the respondents clearly visits the petitioners with civil and evil consequences and if given effect to, the same 3 2025:HHC:8680-DB will debar the petitioners for all times to come to participate in such tenders. 6. Obviously, in such circumstances, the respondents were required to comply with the minimum standards of the principles of natural justice. The impugned action of the respondents, therefore, is arbitrary and illegal and also suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and, hence, the same cannot be sustained. 7. Why we observe so is because admittedly even in the earlier tender issued by the respondents, it was the petitioners, who had been found to be the lowest bidder, but for some strange reasons, those tenders were not taken to their logical end and at one occasion even cancelled on the ground of “administrative reasons”, which reason by itself could not have sustained, in light of the decision of this Court in CWP No. 8216 of 2023, titled as Karan Raj Singh vs, State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 27.03.2025. 8. In the given facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to quash the notification dated 05.11.2024, whereby the tender of the petitioners has been rejected at the technical bid stage. Ordered accordingly. 9. The petitioners shall be considered to be technically qualified. The respondents are directed to open financial bid and 4 2025:HHC:8680-DB take an appropriate decision thereafter in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) 1st April, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)