CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

M/s Bahadur Singh Patni vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 2 May 2026 · Citation: (2026) 05 UK CK 0360

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J · Siddhartha Sah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petiton No. 333 Of 2026 (M/B)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 352 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"i)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25-04-2026 (Annexure no. 1, annexed at page no. 15 to 18 in the instant Writ Petition) issued by respondent no. 3 insofar as the petitioner has illegally been declared non responsive in the tender in question i.e. Work for Restoration of Lining of Left Side of Main Canal No. 01 in Block Khatima in Udham Singh Nagar District (Reach-Km. 2,2000 to 4.500 km.) and may further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 and 3 to declare the petitioner as responsive in the aforementioned tender and also to treat the petitioner as fully responsive in the said tender and proceed accordingly with the said tender.

ii) Issue any writ or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

iii) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."

2.

Heard Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3.

During the course of the arguments, Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate submitted on instructions that the petitioner shall submit a fresh representation before the Superintending Engineer, the respondent no.2 within two days from today. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate has requested to decide the present writ petition by directing the Superintending Engineer to decide the petitioner's representation before opening the financial bid.

4.

Mr. B. S. Parihar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, submitted on instructions that upon filing of a representation within two days from today, the same shall be decided within 48 hours.

5.

Heaving heard, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Superintending Engineer, the respondent no.2 that if the petitioner submits a representation within two days from today, it shall be decided, as per law/rules, within the next 48 hours.

6.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.