( 2025:HHC:43258 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14886 a/w CWP Nos.14882, 14884 and 14885 of 2025. Decided on: 11.12.2025 Love Kumar ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ....Respondent(s) a/w connected matters Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, in all the petition(s). For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State, in all the petition(s). : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3, in all the petition(s). G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present writ petitions have been filed and came up on 15.09.2025 on the Board, which was the last date to participate in the impugned Notice Inviting Tender dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-12). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were in occupation of the shops/counters in question and we had passed the following interim order on 15.09.2025:- “Notice. Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, accepts notice for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, accepts the same for respondents No. 2 & 3, in all the petitions. They seek time to file reply. List on 27.10.2025. CMP No. 22681 of 2025 in CWP No.14886 of 2025. CMP No. 22673 of 2025 in CWP No.14882 of 2025. CMP No. 22679 of 2025 in CWP No.14884 of 2025. CMP No. 22678 of 2025 in CWP No.14885 of 2025. A perusal of the detail of Reserve Prices for the shops in question would go on to show that for Shop No. 1, the monthly reserve rent is Rs. 30,000/-, whereas the occupant is only paying Rs.3,000/- per month. Similarly, for Shop No. 2, the monthly reserve rent is Rs.10,000/-, whereas the occupant is only paying Rs.2,000/- per month, and for Counters No. 1 & 2, the reserve monthly rent is Rs.7500/-, each and the occupants are only paying Rs. 2,000/- per month for each counters. In such circumstances, let the occupants also participate in the Notice Inviting Tender process, the last date of which is today itself, i.e. 15th September, 2025. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the shops/counters in question, for a considerable time, we are of the considered opinion that for the present, the cut-off date can be extended by one week, subject to the final decision of the writ petitions. The applications are accordingly disposed of.” 3 3. Today, we are informed that respondent No.1-State in deference to the said interim order had also extended the date and the petitioner(s) were permitted to participate upto 22.09.2025 but none of them have submitted and filled up the tender form. Thereafter, the applications came to be filed that petitioner(s) as such could not participate in the tender process subject to various reasons including not possessing GST number but they were ready and willing to enhance the amount of which was being paid by them already. 4. Counsel for respondent No.1-State, on the other hand has placed on record a communication dated 03.11.2025, wherein it has been noticed that after openining of the Technical Bid of tender on 22.09.2025, thereafter Financial Bid was opened on 14.10.2025 and the tender was liable to be allotted to the successful qualified highest bidders, subject to the final decision/outcome of the decision of the Writ Petition. 5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that once the petitioners themselves have resiled from the undertaking given and not opted to apply, the lis as such is to become infructuous on their part, since they had approached the Writ Court at the last moment. The writ Court had exercised its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to grant them the indulgence as 4 such only on the ground that they were in possession of the premises, since long for the paltry amount as such. 6. The argument by the counsel for the petitioner(s) as such that without determining the tenancy, the shops cannot be put to auction, was never a subject matter of consideration, considering the relief which was sought in the writ petition, which was only impugning the Notice Inviting Tender as such. Even otherwise such a relief is not liable to be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction and since it is a disputed issue which would arise and it is a matter to be adjudicated upon by a Court of competent jurisdiction, since it is a trite law that the disputed questions are not to be decided on the basis of the affidavits. Therefore, the writ petition in that form is not even maintainable. 7. In such circumstances, having not participated after given an opportunity, no further orders are liable to be passed in their favour. Apparently other bidders have applied in pursuance of the Notice Inviting Tender and as to cross the eligibility criteria, the Technical Bid and now also the Financial Bid are to be opened and they would be adversely affected, if these proceedings are kept alive as even the Financial Bid has also been opened and the award has to be only made. 5 8. Therefore, respondent No.3-IGMC, Shimla, which is rendering essential services to the general public as such would also be put to irreparable loss and therefore, we do not find any plausible reason as such to keep these writ petitions pending. Resultanlty, all the present Writ Petitions stand dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. 9. Needless to say, all interim orders stand vacated. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 11th December, 2025 (Munish Thakur)