SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 2025:UHC:1404-DB WPMB No.46 of 2025 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned counsel, for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand/1 to 3. 3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- “I. Issue a writ or order in nature writ of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned decision dated 24.02.2025 (annexure no.1), qua the petitioner, pursuant to which the Bid Evaluation Committee, consisting of three members, has declared the bid of the petitioner as non-responsive and thereby disqualified him in the tender process. II. Issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the bid of the petitioner as responsive, as the ground on which the bid has been declared non-responsive is absolutely untenable, because the affidavit regarding site visit which has been shown not to be submitted by the petitioner, was duly submitted by him through online bidding process and hard copy of also annexed with the bid document and the same was dropped by him in the drop box, installed by the respondent no.2 for this propose.” 4. Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his technical bid. The reason assigned for rejecting his technical bid is that he did not submit affidavit regarding site visit. Petitioner contends that he had submitted the affidavit regarding site visit not only in physical form but also online, therefore, the ground taken for rejecting his technical bid is unsustainable. 5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that requirement of submitting affidavit regarding site visit is an essential condition as many times, successful bidder, upon award of the contract, offers excuses that there were various problems on the site which led to delay in completing of contract, therefore, to rule out possibility of such lame excuses being offered, this requirement of submitting affidavit was added. 6. Based on the instructions received from Sri Heera Singh Bisht, Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD, Nainital, he submits that total 12 bids were received pursuant to the notice inviting tender and out of those 12 bids, 2 were declared to be non- responsive, on this very ground namely non submission of the affidavit regarding site visit. 7. As petitioner contends that he has submitted physical copy of the affidavit along with his bid, which statement has been disputed by the learned State Counsel, therefore, in a writ petition, such a factual dispute cannot be decided. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel that after rejection of technical bid on this ground, every bidder will contend that he has produced affidavit along with his bid. 9. In view of the factual dispute raised by petitioner regarding submission of the physical copy of the affidavit with his bid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 28.02.2025 NR/