NARESH KHETRAPAL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 12766/2008 for the reasons recorded in the application for amendment and in view of fact that the Petitioner was never told that a vigilance enquiry was pending against him, the application for amendment is allowed and the Petitioner is permitted to challenge the validity of Clause 8 (h) of the Tender terms.

(2.) THE application stands disposed of. WP (C) No. 6264/2008 and CM No. 11962/2008 1. Rule D. B. 2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

(3.) THE present writ petition apart from challenging the decision of the respondent not to open the financial bid of the Petitioner also seeks to challenge the legality of Clause 8 (h) in respect of the Tender bearing No. 5. TP (10)/2008 dated 30. 6. 2008 which authorizes the Ministry of Tourism not to accept bids from agencies resorting to unethical practices or on whom investigation/enquiry proceeding has been initiated by the government investigating agencies/vigilance cell. In fact on the basis of Clause 8 (h) the petitioner"s tender has not been considered.