KHUSHAL SINGH ADHIKARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The stage of the proceedings of the writ petition, at which this Court is called upon to consider the stay vacation application, for the purposes of scrutinizing the veracity of the interim order dtd. 18/11/2021, which has been passed by the court in a contractual matter, where it effects the Work Package No. 07-08 for Stage II work of motor road from Rati Ghat to Budhlakot, is required to be considered, as to whether at all there could be a stay of the tendering process, by virtue and as a consequential effect of which, would be that the entire work of a project for laying down the roads in the hill areas has been kept at a halt.

(2.) This Court has had to refer to each of the elaborate arguments, which has been extended by the learned counsels, for the petitioner, as well as, that of the respondents, wherein the counsel for the petitioner has rather contended, that grant of an interim order in the instant case was imminent because in the absence of the same it would have completely rendered the lis itself infructuous, wherein in the writ petition the petitioner has put a challenge to the order of 30/11/2011, as uploaded 1/11/2021, which was passed by the respondents employer rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner, in the tendering process which has been initiated as a consequence of the invitation of bids in pursuance to the publication Reference No. 1421/11-02/(XIX) ITCO/URRDA/21 dtd. 1/9/2021.

(3.) It becomes inevitable for this Court to avoid to consider the backdrop, though in a precise manner, to answer the argument which has been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted, that it is a sole proprietorship firm, which has been registered, as an A class contractor with the PWD Department and is engaged in the work of construction of roads and as per the invitation of bids by NIT dtd. 1/9/2021, issued by URRDA in respect of the aforesaid work package. The petitioner submitted, that as per the tender summary report of 9/10/2021, when it was uploaded by the respondents, the bid of the petitioner along with the seven other bidders were held to be technically responsive in terms of Clause 22.5 of the standard bidding document.