1 ( 2025:HHC:7989 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.3473 of 2025 Decided on: 26.03.2025 M/s Bharat Cuisine Services, Chefs & Caterers ...…..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.I.N.Mehta, Sr. Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Mr. Sushant Keprate, & Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral ) Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 25.03.2025. It shall be apt to reproduce relevant para of the instructions which read as under:- “Thus keeping in view the complete facts including the provisions of the tender document/Annexure P-2 of the tender document, observations made by the Hon’ble Court vide its Order dated 19.03.2025 as also the discussion held with the State Tender Evaluation Committee at the Directorate level, the earlier proceedings of the meeting of the committee as held on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:7989 ) 05.02.2025, stood reviewed and relooked by the tender evaluation committee of this office in its meeting as held on 24.03.2025, when after going into the entire facts and circumstances, the committee was/is of unanimous view and recommendation that the technical bid of the petitioner firm has been rejected due to mis- interpretation; whereas the said firm otherwise was/is technically qualified for the reasons that it had factually never been convicted or blacklisted and no any false undertaking to that effect had ever been furnished by the firm concerned so as to render the affidavit submitted by it as false. Hence, the technical bid of the petitioner firm is also liable to be opened and the tender process has to be reconsidered from the stage the firm was technically disqualified, for which a separate reference can also to e made to the NIC for revocation of the tender of so required (copy of proceeding of the meeting dated 24.03.2025 is attached) for favour of kind perusal please).” 2. Now that the respondents themselves have held the petitioner-firm eligible and have further agreed to open its technical bid and reconsider the same from the stage the case of the petitioner- firm was rejected, as being technically disqualified, the instant petition has lost its efficacy as the reliefs claimed therein stand redressed by the respondents themselves. 3. The instant petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms so also the pending application(s) if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) Judge 26th March, 2025. (yogesh/pankaj)