M/s Uttaranchal Builders vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

The appellant has challenged the legality of the order dated 22.06.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1102 of 2021,

whereby the learned Single Judge, while issuing notice to respondent No. 4, has allowed the respondents to award the contract work, but made it

abundantly clear that the award of the contract shall be subject to the final decision of the case.

Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that in case the contract were awarded, third-party right

would arise, which would only further complicate the issue. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the grievance of the appellant is, firstly, that he

has been declared as “unresponsive†by respondent No. 2. Secondly, despite the fact that it is L-1, the work contract is not being awarded to it.

Thirdly, the appellant apprehends that if the contract were awarded to respondent No. 4, he may not put his appearance before the Writ Court, and

may linger on the case so as to take the benefit of time, and to complete the project awarded to him. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits

that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

Heard the learned Senior Counsel, and perused the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Single Judge realizes the urgency of the matter. In fact, he has clearly

directed that “List this matter immediately after receipt of service report.†Therefore, the apprehension that respondent No. 4 may linger-on

the case, and may turn the case into a case of fait accompli is highly misplaced. For, once the matter is listed, and respondent No.4 fails to appear

before the learned Writ Court, the learned Writ Court is within its power to proceed ex-parte against respondent No. 4.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is not justified in claiming that the appellant is the L-1. For, once the appellant is

declared as “unresponsiveâ€, the question of it being declared as “L-1†would not even arise. Further, the other issues, whether the appellant

was illegally declared as “unresponsiveâ€, or not? Whether it should be declared as L-1, or not? And whether the work contract should be

awarded to the appellant, or not, are issues, which need to be adjudicated by the learned Single Judge.

Although this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, this Court does request the learned Single Judge to decide the

case as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order.

With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.