Rajkumar Diwakar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

According to the petitioner, he was engaged as a Contractor for providing Mechanized Laundary Service in Dr. Susheela Tiwari Government

Medical College, Haldwani since last several years. Petitioner is aggrieved by award of contract for the said work in favour of respondent no. 3. Thus,

feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:

“i) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the original records and set aside the tender no. GMCHLD/E-PROC/Estate/

Mechanised Laundry/21-22 dated 28.09.2021 for “Operation Works of Mechanised Laundary at Dr. Susheela Tiwari Government Hospital

(Teaching Hospital of Government Medical College)†(Annexure No.2); and consequently, set aside any letter/award/ work order issued in favour of

the Respondent No. 3 for rendering services pursuant to the award of the Tender.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 3 has been given undue favour while granting the contract, inasmuch as, he alone

was invited for giving demonstration of operating Mechanized Laundry on 14.12.2021; while, petitioner, who was also a bidder for the same contract,

was not asked to give demonstration.

Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions, regarding averment made in paragraph no. 10 of the writ petition. Today, on instructions,

learned Deputy Advocate General submits that, in view of spread of COVID-19 virus, a decision was taken by the Principal of Medical College that

the condition of giving demonstration of operating Mechanized Laundry was relaxed in favour of all the bidders and no bidder was invited to give such

demonstration. Thus, according to learned State Counsel, the allegation of foul play is without any substance.

Since the power to relax some condition of the tender document is available to the Principal of the Medical College and the condition, regarding

giving demonstration, was relaxed by the Principal having regard to the prevalent Pandemic condition, therefore, the decision taken by the Principal

cannot be faulted, especially when similar treatment was given to all the bidders.

Even otherwise also, the contract has been awarded to respondent no. 3, who has started providing Mechanized Laundry Services in the Medical

College.

In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference in the matter.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.