KHUSHAL SINGH ADHIKARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, which is a proprietorship firm, and a registered "A" class contractor with the Public Works Department, has agitated his grievances, as against the impugned order dtd. 23/8/2021, which has been passed by respondent no.4, which was uploaded online by Respondent No.4 on 23/8/2021. As a consequence of which, the petitioner contends, that he would be deprived of submitting his tenders to participate in the bidding process, which has been resorted to or would be resorted to in future by the respondents. Owing to the attraction of the implications, as it has been referred to in the impugned communication, debarring the petitioner's entitlement to participate due to the set of allegations mentioned in second column of Clause 6.8, which is extracted hereunder:-

(2.) There are two fold arguments, which would be primarily required to be considered, at this stage, in order to summarize the controversy without barging into the merits of the matter, the petitioner contends that the very foundation of the passing of the impugned order happens to be the letter of the Chief Engineer No.1004/URRDA/2021, dtd. 27/7/2021, which was already earlier the subject matter of consideration in the writ petition, which was decided by this Court, vide its judgment dtd. 13/8/2021, rendered by this Court in a Writ Petition being WPMS No.1600 of 2021, "M/s Doon Associates, Suraj Kund Bageshwar, District Bageshwar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others", wherein, this Court while harmoniously construing the effect of the correspondence of the Chief Engineer dtd. 27/7/2021, along with the implications of Clause 47(ii) as observed and considered in paragraph Nos.5 and 6, of the said judgment, the Writ Petition, which was preferred by the M/s Doon Associates, Suraj Kund, District Bageshwar was dismissed. The relevant paragraph Nos.5 and 6, of the said judgment, is extracted hereunder:-

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the High Court has already ventured into a judicial scrutiny of the order dtd. 27/7/2021, and its correlated implications to Clause 4.7(ii). In that eventuality, without putting a challenge to the judgment dtd. 13/8/2021, before any superior forum, the implications of the order dtd. 27/7/2021, could not have been borrowed by the respondents, for the purposes of holding the petitioner to be incapable to participate in the bidding process, due to the alleged, allegations of non completion of the work, as it has been mentioned in the second column, as extracted above, against petitioners name.