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.117 of 2025 2nd April, 2025 M/s Mahavir Singh Aswal --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand 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 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 1 2025:UHC:2444-DB 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; that, the petitioner moved representation against the declaring his technical bid as non-responsive, his representation too was rejected on 19.03.2025. 3. The main ground canvassed by the petitioner is that he was not communicated about his bid being declared non responsive within time. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the bid of the petitioner has rightly been declared technically non-responsive and his representation too has been rejected as ‘the data of UDIN of Fin-3 is mismatched with the data of certificate’. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, submits that the UDIN was issued based on a provisional turnover; whereas, as per the tender conditions, a provisional turnover is not acceptable. He further submits that the cause of non-responsiveness was communicated to the petitioner both telephonically as well as through Email, on 19.03.2025. 2 2025:UHC:2444-DB 5. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner has failed to make out clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality against the respondent-department. 6. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 02.04.2025 BS 3