M/s Svasca Industries (India) Limited vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

By means of this Writ Petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

“ i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for original records and set-aside the 04 (Four) tenders (Annexure nos. 9 &

10), in respect of which bids have been invited by the respondent no. 3, as the petitioner company’s representation dated 06.12.2021 (Annexure

no. 7) submitted by the petitioner company in compliance of this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure No. 6), has not been

decided and the petitioner company has been prevented from participating in the tender process.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner company to participate provisionally in

the opening of the 04 (Four) tenders invited by the respondent no. 3, out of which 02 (Two) are scheduled to be opened on 04.01.2022 at 16:00 HRs

(annexed as Annexure No. 9); and the remaining 02 (Two) are scheduled to be opened on 05.01.2022 at 15:30 HRs (annexed as Annexure No.

10).â€​

According to petitioner, he was wrongly debarred from participating in future tenders for one year, vide order dated 25.11.2021 passed by

Superintending Engineer, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited. Against said order, petitioner has made representation.

In the writ petition, it is contended that since petitioner’s representation is not decided so far, therefore, till decision on his representation,

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited be restrained from proceeding any further with the tender process.

Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that petitioner’s representation has been decided by the

Competent Authority, vide order dated 01.01.2022. He further submits that decision taken on petitioner’s representation has been challenged by

him, by filing WPMS No. 28 of 2022.

Since decision on petitioner’s representation has now been taken and petitioner’s representation has been rejected, therefore, there is no

scope for interfering with the tender process, which is challenged in this writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued within 48 hours.