Disposed

M/S Hindustan Fibre Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Amit Kumar Bhagat v. Union of India Thru. General Manager Modern Coach Factory Raebareli and 5 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024WRIC/7376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tender for supply to Modern Coach Factory: petitioner was L1 in 80% bulk order but price negotiations failed and eligibility criteria were revised; authority decided to re-advertise the tender. Court required a written communication to the petitioner within ten days and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Written communication of bid non-acceptance within ten days; liberty to pursue remedies.

M/S Hindustan Fibre Glass Works Pvt. Ltd… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72516-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7376 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Hindustan Fibre Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Amit Kumar Bhagat Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. General Manager Modern Coach Factory Raebareli And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Bajpai,Bhanu Bajpai,Gaurav Mehrotra,Nadeem Murtaza Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

1. Heard.

¶8

In response to our earlier order, Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties has instructions to inform the court that tender process was in two parts, one pertaining to 20 per cent of development order and remaining 80 per cent was bulk orders. In the 20 per cent development order part of the tender, somebody else was L1. As far as 80 per cent bulk order tender is concerned, the petitioner was L1. However, as the price quoted by it was excessive, therefore, negotiations were held so as to bring down the price quoted by it but this did not fructify. In the interregnum, the Railway Board extensively revised the eligibility criteria for such tenders, therefore, looking into the entire scenario as the negotiation with L1- the petitioner herein pertaining to 80 per cent bulk order did not fructify, therefore, a decision has been taken by the concerned authority to re-advertise the tender. In view of above, for all legal and practical purposes, the bid of the petitioner has not been accepted. The least that is required is that a written communication be made to the petitioner in this regard.

¶9

Let such communication be made within ten days. The petitioner shall thereafter be at liberty to pursue remedies as may be prescribed in law.

¶10

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶11

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 25.10.2024/Shanu/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Hindustan Fibre Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Amit Kumar Bhagat v. Union of India Thru. General Manager Modern Coach Factory Raebareli and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Hindustan Fibre Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Amit Kumar Bhagat v. Union of India Thru. General Manager Modern Coach Factory Raebareli and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Nihal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Vikramaditya Singh @ Vikrama Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Political Pension Deptt. Lko and Another

Sandeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. , Revenue and 5 Others

Shesh Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Laxmi Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 4 Others

Anuj Kumar Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 3 Others