MAHAVIR SINGH ASWAL v. CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
WPMB/88/2025 · 2025-04-02
Alok Mahra, G Narendar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4123 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4123 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:UHC:2444-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Writ Petition (M/B) No.88 of 2025
2nd April, 2025
M/s Mahavir Singh Aswal --Petitioner
Versus
Chief Engineer, Public Works Department and others
--Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. G.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J. C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT: (per Mr. Alok Mahra J.)
Notice Inviting Tender was issued by respondent no.2 on 03.02.2025 under road safety work of installing crash barrier of State Highway-69 (Lambgaon- Motana- Rajakhet- Ghansali- Sendul State Highway km 74 to km 81.40).
2.
The case of the petitioner is that he fulfilled 1
2025:UHC:2444-DB
all the requisite conditions as mentioned in the NIT and have submitted his tender for the aforesaid work. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though, he fulfilled all the eligibility conditions, but bid of the petitioner along with two other bidders were declared to be technically non-responsive vide order dated 17.03.2025 passed by respondent no.2; while, the bid of other three bidders were declared to be technical responsive.
3.
The main ground canvassed by the petitioner is that he was not communicated about his bid being declared non responsive within time. Against declaration of his technical bid as non responsive, the petitioner moved a representation, which was rejected on 19.03.2025, therefore, the petitioner filed subsequent Writ Petition (M/B) No.117 of 2025, wherein he has challenged the order dated 19.03.2025, whereby his representation was rejected and has also sought quashing of consequential orders. Since the petitioner has filed subsequent Writ Petition (M/B) No.117 of 2025, therefore, the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 17.03.2025 and other consequential order has rendered infructuous. 2
2025:UHC:2444-DB
4.
In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 02.04.2025 BS 3