Disposed

M/S Vikhil Project LLP v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jul 2024CWP/6211/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court expressed inability to understand why the lower authority cancelled the e-tender by ignoring superior directions to upload the project on the e-marg portal. The writ petition was disposed of by imposing a monetary cost on the erring department rather than interfering with the cancellation order itself.

What did the court decide?

Cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the 5th Respondent, payable to the H. P. High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks.

M/S Vikhil Project LLP Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:4345 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 6211 of 2024.

¶4

Date of Decision : 3rd July , 2024.

¶5

M/s Vikhil Project LLP . ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ... .Respondents.

¶6

Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

For the Petitioner:	Mr. Nand Lal Th	akur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rakesh	Dhaulta, Additional
	Advocate Gene	ral and Mr. Gobind
	Korla, Additiona	l Advocate General

¶10

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶11

The petitioner has assailed the cancellation order made by

¶12

the 5^th respondent on 27.06.2024 for cancelling e-tender issued on 07.06.2024 allegedly due to administrative reasons.

¶13

On instructions, learned Additional Advocate General states that the said cancellation is on account of the fact that the 5^th respondent had not uploaded the project on e-marg portal (for on line

¶14

…2…

¶15

payment portal of Ministry of Rural Development) though there was direction to that effect issued on 16^th March, 2024 by the Engineer-inChief, HPPWD.

¶16

We are unable to understand why the 5^th respondent thought it fit to ignore the directions issued on 16^th March, 2024 by his superior authority. We are also perplexed by the inaction of the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD (2^nd respondent) in ignoring the said violation of the instructions by the 5^th respondent resulting in cancellation of the e-tender notice dated 7^th June, 2024.

¶17

Therefore, though we do not wish to interfere with the impugned cancellation order, however, we impose cost of Rs.10,000/upon the 5^th respondents to be paid to the H. P. High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks because the violation by 5^th respondent of the instructions issued by 2^nd respondent has resulted in the cancellation of e-tender. The 2^nd respondent shall also consider the disobedience by the 5^th respondent of his instructions dt. 16^th March, 2024 and initiate appropriate action against 5^th respondent if he deems fit and appropriate. Copy of this order be marked to the 2^nd respondent.

¶18

…3…

¶19

The Writ petition is accordingly disposed of so also the

¶20

pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶21

( M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice.

¶22

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶23

3^rd July, 2024. (jai)

M/S Vikhil Project LLP v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vikhil Project LLP v. State of Hp and 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

Similar cases

Ujjwal Singh Joint Venture Vs State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Arun Sood

State of Hp and Others Vs Raghav Singh Jaswal

Hpseb Ltd. Vs Shyam Lal and Others

Shakuntla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Suresh Kumar Vs Hrtc and Ors.