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
8 paragraphs · 480 wordsThis writ application relates to Notice Inviting Tender dated October 27, 2016.
According to the petitioner, a party interested to participate in the above bid for construction of R.C.C. Over Head Reservoir of different capacities with 20 m staging height over Annular Raft or pile foundation, as the case may be, as stated in the E-Tender as per departmental design, drawing and specification of the respondent Municipality. According to the petitioner, the eligibility criteria to participate in the above tender inviting process was fixed by the Municipality arbitrarily. It was also the contention of the petitioner that on an earlier occasion several notices were issued for inviting tender. The petitioner was one of the participants in respect of those notices. Though the petitioner was found eligible in respect of two of such notices he was found not eligible in respect of remaining four notices. As a consequence thereof, an objection was taken by the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted a representation against such action on the part of the respondent Municipality. Subsequently, those notices were cancelled and the cancellation of inviting E-Tender impugned to the writ application was issued clubbing together all previous notices as also fixed the eligibility criteria.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Municipality that the writ application was filed after expiry of the last date of participating in the tender process. No interim order was passed in connection with this writ application restraining the respondent Municipality from proceeding further in the above work. On instruction, it is submitted by him that the work orders were issued in the month of January, 2017 and those works have already been completed in or around June, 2017. According to him, nothing remains to be decided in this writ application.
After considering the fact and circumstances of this case, I find that the last date of participation in respect of ETender in question was October 28, 2016. The date of pre-bid meeting was fixed on November 2, 2016. Online bids submission started on November 2, 2016. But this writ application was affirmed on November 11, 2016 without raising even a little finger against the above alleged arbitrary action on the part of the respondent Municipality within the period of time fixed for participating in the tender process.
It is also not in dispute that no interim order was passed in this writ application restraining the respondent Municipality from proceeding further in connection with the tender process in question. After completion of the work involved in this writ application has become an academic issue.
In view of the above, this writ application stands disposed of without passing further orders.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
