ROSMERTA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the State-Respondents be directed to withdraw the letter dated 10-07-2017 (Annexure P19) issued by the Secretary, Transport Department to the Director of the Petitioner Company. That, the contents of the letter reflects that a show cause was issued by the Delhi Government to the Petitioner Company for violation of terms and conditions of the contract agreement and that the matter is sub judice. It has also been reflected in the correspondence that after discussions and details available, it was confirmed that the matter is still pending before the Arbitration Tribunal at New Delhi and is sub judice. That, consequently in terms of the powers conferred by Clause 2.23.5, 2.23.6 and 2.23.7 of Section III of Bid document (NIT 25-07-2014) the State Government is not in a position to accept the bid and award the contract for High Security Registration Plates to the Petitioner Company. That, the State Government has decided to re-tender. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the foregoing details as reflected in the letter, the Petitioner Company apprehends that the contents therein will be used against them in any other Fora in future, thereby causing prejudice to the Petitioner Company.

(2.) Per contra, it is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 that, nothing further remains in the matter in view of what has been recorded in the Orders of this Court dated 27-11-2019. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 advanced the submissions that on the last date Counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that the Petitioner will not be pressing Prayers (B) and (C) of the Writ Petition and will confine his prayers only to the Prayer (A). It had also been submitted that the Writ Petition has become infructuous because of the amendment of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, yet if the letter dated 10-07-2017 is allowed to stand on record the same will cause prejudice to the Petitioner. It was admitted by the Petitioner Company that they did not participate in the NIT dated 17-08-2017. It was further admitted that even if the letter dated 10-07-2017 is set aside, the directions contained in the Order of this Court dated 13-06-2017 in WP(C) No.53 of 2015 to award a Letter of Intent to the Petitioner would be an infructuous order. That, accordingly the Petitioner would not press for grant of Letter of Intent pursuant to the NIT dated 25-07-2014. That, the contents of the impugned letter are innocuous and the matter cannot linger on sans any basis and deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General submits that once the Prayers (B) and (C) of the Writ Petition have been abandoned up by the Petitioner then Prayer (A) would be rendered infructuous and thereby the Petition ought to be dismissed.