pretext of challenging the tender process whereby the contract was to be allotted to an entity, it was doing so merely on the ground that, that entity was already blacklisted and still was to get the contract. One cannot find fault with the petitioner-Nobel Carrying Corporation for taking advantage of the situation. It could use the circumstance to his advantage and succeeded in stalling the process. However, the stand of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the submission of the learned Addl.G.P. attributing petitioner Nobel Carrying Corporation as mischievous, to our mind, is rather harsh. If respondent nos. 1 and 2 were unable to undertake the tender process with precaution and had allowed a blacklisted entity to participate, may be on the basis of the petitioner’s allegations they could have undertaken a fresh scrutiny or could have circulated the matter for an early decision, more so when at their request it was transferred to the Principal Seat. Consequently, it was not the petitioner Nobel Carrying Corporation, who alone was responsible, but even respondent no. 1 was responsible for not getting the writ petition decided earlier or to get the interim relief vacated. It would not, therefore, lie in the mouth of respondent no. 1 to attribute petitioner-Nobel Carrying Corporation for the mess.
