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
7 paragraphs · 243 wordsManoj Kumar Gupta CJ
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed questioning the settlement of contract by the respondents - Municipal Corporation for supply of manpower vide work order dated 11.03.2026 in favour of respondent no.4. The petitioners have questioned the experience certificate of respondent no.4.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 has raised a preliminary objection in respect of the locus of the petitioners to challenge the work order and award of contract in favour of respondent no.4. It is submitted that the petitioners have not participated in the tender process and, therefore, they have no locus.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners participated in the previous tender exercise but it was later on cancelled. He admits that this time the petitioners have not submitted any bid, though it is stated that it was for the reason that the petitioners did not qualify the condition relating to experience imposed by respondent nos.2 and 3 while issuing the tender notice in question.
Be that as it may, since it is admitted that the petitioners have not submitted any bid in pursuance of the e- tender notice dated 15.12.2025, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not have any locus to challenge the award of contract in favour of respondent no.4.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.