NAMIT GUPTA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the rejection letter, dated 22nd January, 2014, (Annexure P- 6), issued by respondent No.2, whereby the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected, and has also sought writ of mandamus commanding respondents No.1 and 2 to open the financial bid of the petitioner, with further prayer that any other relief, which the Court deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that a tender notice, dated 5.11.2013, (Annexure P-1), was issued by the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department for the construction of a new OPD Block and Car Parking at Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla. The persons/tenderers, eligible and interested to participate in the said tender process, were required to submit their tenders online. T7he petitioner, respondent No.3 and one Sai Engineering Foundation submitted their technical bids. On examination, the documents of the petitioner and Sai Engineering Foundation were not found in terms of the conditions stipulated in the tender notice, Annexure P-1. The petitioner was asked to submit certain documents, vide letter, dated 10th January, 2014, (Annexure P-2), issued by respondent No.2, to which the petitioner responded, vide letter dated 13th January, 2014, Annexure P-3. Respondent No.1, vide letter dated 10th January, 2014, Annexure P-4, also sought some clarifications from Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Solan qua the work done by the petitioner and response thereto is Annexure P-5. The petitioner submitted that without taking all these facts into account, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. It was further submitted that respondents No.1 and 2, while rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner, acted illegally and arbitrarily in order to shower favours upon respondent No.3.

(3.) The precise case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2, with malafide intentions, in breach of the procedure and principles of natural justice, rejected his technical bid, which act of respondent No.2 is colourable exercise of power.