Jagdish Chand Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

Petitioner submitted bid pursuant to notice inviting tender issued by respondent no.2. Petitioner’s technical bid was however, rejected, on certain

grounds. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of his bid, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that only 3 bids were received in response to the tender notice,

out of which 02 were rejected, therefore, only one bidder remained in the fray. He submits that as per the Uttarakhand Government Procurement

Rules, in such a case, tenders have to be invited afresh.

Shri P.R. Mullick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing for a while, submits that he is not pressing relief no.1 as claimed in the

writ petition and he confines his prayer only to issue a direction to respondent no.2 to take decision on petitioner’s representation.

In such view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent no.2. If such

representation is made within a week, decision thereupon shall be taken, as early as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of

representation along with certified copy of this order.

Let certified copy of this order be issued to the parties within 24 hours.