2026:HHC:10497 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 16467 of 2025 Date of decision: 06.04.2026 Rajender Singh Rana & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present petition seeks the declaration of ineligible bidders private respondents No. 3 and 4 whereby they have been qualified for financial bid on the recommendation of the Technical Evaluation Report and for declaring the ineligible bidders as ‘technically responsive’ and for reverting the tender process to reassess the eligibility of the bidders to the tender. 2. Since no stay was granted and the State had been directed to file affidavit regarding the fact whether respondents No. 3 and 4 hot mixing plant was out of range of 30 kms. or not, which allegedly made them ineligible as per petitioners. 3. The State has filed its response giving the reason why the petitioner and two other government contractors were found non-responsive due to the large number of ongoing construction 2 2026:HHC:10497 and post-construction maintenance works coupled with their poor performance. The other two bidders have been found technically responsive. The details of the on-going work of the petitioners are given in para-4 of the reply of the State as such. It has been mentioned that Letter of Intent was issued by respondent No. 2 on 14.10.2025, as the work was of urgent nature and the working season was limited and the work was awarded to respondent No. 3 and the same has been completed in all respects and final bill has also been prepared. 4. It has further been averred that condition of the 30 kms of the mix plant had already been done away by the decision of the government and the same was communicated to the concerned department. Replication has not been filed to the said averments. 5. We are of the considered opinion that since the work already stands completed, the present case is liable to be closed in view of the stand of the State which has not been controverted to. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 6th April, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)