2025:UHC:2124-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. 90 of 2025 24 March, 2025 Maneesh Saran --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Abhijay Negi and Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Supyal Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for respondent no.2 Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for L-1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Mr. G. Narendar C.J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the corporation and learned counsel for respondent/(L-1). 2. The petition involves a controversial condition i.e. production of hardcopy of the bid documents that are already produced online. The allegation is that the petitioner did not produce the hardcopy on the relevant date and hence, the bid of the petitioner suffered a 1 2025:UHC:2124-DB technical disqualification. 3. It is not the case of the Respondents that a condition is imposed, where the tenderers are called upon to produce the originals of the documents placed online in order to verify and authenticate them. But the condition is that they are merely required to produce one set of the same papers already produced online. The object behind this is unfathomable and incomprehensible. We have been observing that, in a series of cases, the bidder, has been disqualified for not producing a physical copy of the bid document which is already available with the tender inviting authority. 4. If this was an isolated case or a couple of cases, this Court would have not given weight to the said condition, but it so happens, that in a series of cases, a similar modus operandi has been adopted by the tendering authority for disqualifying a tender. It would not have been a cause for concern, had it not been that the person approaching the Court, in many a case, was invariably found to have bid the lowest amount. This approach has been adopted in one-too many cases for it to be a co-incident and this Court has also exercised its jurisdiction in few such cases and the authorities have conceded to do away with the clause 2 2025:UHC:2124-DB and re-tender the work. 5. This case was called sometime ago, and this Court posed certain queries to the counsel for the Corporation as the petitioner/bidder has purchased the FDRs i.e. fixed deposit and produced the receipt. The FDR has been purchased well in time. The next point is that the petitioner has already undertaken several works with the second respondent itself, implying thereby, he is well versed with the process of tendering, the follow-up process, etc. These two factors would go to show that the petitioner is not a fly-by-night operator or is not one, who is trying to take advantage of the justice dispensation system and use it as an arm- twisting method to extract any undue benefits. The third factor is that the bid of the petitioner is said to be Rs.50 lakhs less than the bidder declared as L-1. The fact that the petitioner is not a busy body, the fact that the petitioner is a serious businessman, the fact that the petitioner is more than competent to participate in the tendering process and the petitioner is well equipped to execute the works are also borne out by the above three factors. It is in this background that we asked the counsel for the second respondent to secure instructions. Matter was passed over. Matter is 3 2025:UHC:2124-DB taken up again. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that he has been instructed to submit before the Court that the second respondent would not proceed further in the tender process and will proceed to re-tender the work by cancelling the earlier tender process. The submission is placed on record. 6. The counsel for the private respondents do not object to the same and pray that the 2nd respondent be directed to return the FDR & other deposits and performance guarantee made by them. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed off by setting aside the order and further permitting the second respondent to re-tender the work in question. The security deposit received in the form FDRs by the second respondent from the various bidders shall be forthwith returned to them and the performance guarantee furnished by respondent no.4 shall also be returned to them. 8. Before parting with the case, we direct the Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand to examine this condition of filing hardcopies when the Government has taken a policy decision to go digital in the matter of filing of tenders. The condition is not imposed as a verification process or to compare the originals, which if 4 2025:UHC:2124-DB it was so, it was understandable. As noted above, by us, in a series of cases, this condition appears to have become a handy tool in the hands of the vested interests. In that view, we direct the Chief Secretary to consider the efficacy of this condition and submit a report to this Court within six weeks. 9. Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 24.03.2025 BS 5