Chandra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his technical bid. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that initially his bid was technically found to be

non-responsive, however, on petitioner’s representation, it was declared to be responsive, vide order dated 31.12.2021.

Grievance of the petitioner is that subsequently on 01.01.2022 again petitioner’s bid was declared to be non-responsive.

Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions vide order dated 05.01.2022. Today, on instructions, Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Addl. C.S.C. has

apprised the Court that complaint was received against order dated 31.12.2021, whereby petitioner’s bid was held to be responsive and after

considering the allegations made in the said complaint, a decision was taken to declare petitioner’s bid non-responsive.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of the complaint was not supplied to petitioner.

Learned Addl. C.S.C. appearing for the respondents is directed to supply copy of the complaint to petitioner’s counsel during the course of the

day. Petitioner shall file representation against the order dated 01.01.2022 within 72 hours. The Competent Authority (respondent no. 2) shall consider

petitioner’s representation and take appropriate decision, as per law, within ten days. For a period of ten days or till disposal of petitioner’s

representation, whichever is earlier, status quo qua the contract in question shall be maintained.

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of.