2025:UHC:1839-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 18TH MARCH, 2025 WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 26 OF 2025 Shri Shakti Om Construction (Joint Venture) and another. …...Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat and Mr. M.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State. JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Alok Mahra, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Brief Holder for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order, whereby their technical bid has been rejected, and have further prayed that the whole tender process of Supply / Installation / Testing & Commissioning of Hydraulic Multilevel Car Parking (G+2) System, along with all lied infrastructure works and maintenance for three years atright side of Gandhi Park between the way of Parade Ground and Gandhi Park, Dehradun be declared as invalid and have further prayed for conducting de novo 2025:UHC:1839-DB 2 exercise by inviting fresh applications. 3. The main ground of challenge of the petitioners is that respondent No. 4, who has been declared as L-1 and has been awarded the said tender, does not fulfill the requisite qualifications as mentioned in the Standard Bidding Document. The petitioner has highlighted the fact that respondent No. 4 has submitted the bid as a power of attorney holder of only one of the partners, whereas the Company consisted of three partners. Furthermore, it is submitted that the experience certificate filed by respondent No. 4 was of a private company and it was not an experience certificate, but only a Work Completion Certificate. 4. A bare perusal of the Work Completion Certificate would reveal that it was issued after respondent No. 4 has successfully completed Multilevel Robotic Mechanical Parking System for 46 Cars, and the work order was above one crore. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Clause-12 of the Partnership Deed, which is quoted as under:- “12. No partner, without the written consent of all the other partners shall do or abet in doing any of the following acts:- 2025:UHC:1839-DB 3 “(i) sell, mortgage, assign or otherwise transfer his share or interest in the partnership business or property. (ii) charge, mortgage, hypothecate, assign or otherwise transfer the business, property or rights of this partnership firm.” 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioners’ technical bid was rightly rejected since petitioners have participated in the tender as a Joint Venture and as per ITB 4.1, as it was clearly mentioned therein that Joint Venture shall not be allowed to participate in the project where the cost of bid is less than 10 crores; the present tender was of Rs.3.80 crores, i.e. less than Rs.10.00 crores, and; furthermore, the petitioners do not fulfill the Specific Construction Experience, i.e. 2.4.2, which reads as under:- “2.4.2 Specific Construction Experience: (a) Contracts of Similar Size and Nature Participation as contractors, in at least one contract that was started and has been substantially or successfully completed within the last Five years, with a value of at least (inclusive of escalation) of INR (Rs. 95.00 Lacs) [25% of the amount put to bid] and that are Supply, installation and commissioning of a Hydraulic Multilevel Car Parking System with 33 nos. of cars similar to the proposed works. Must meet requirement Must meet requirement Not Applicable Not Applicable Forms given in Section 4 EXP 2 2025:UHC:1839-DB 4 The similarity shall be necessarily based on the physical size, complexity, methods, technology. Material Used or other characteristics as described in Section-5, Works Requirements. 7. Since the petitioners have not challenged the order, whereby their technical bid was rejected and the work / contract has already been awarded in favour of respondent No. 4, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the tender process. 8. The writ petition, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. As a sequel thereto, pending application, if any, shall stand closed. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 18th March, 2025 Rathour