Bansal Enterprises Vs the State of Hp

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.11789 of 2026 Decided on : 16.07.2026

¶3

Bansal Enterprises ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and Anr. …Respondents.

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Parav Sharma and Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocates. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶9

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶10

By way of the present petition, the petitioner prays

¶11

for extension of the validity of the contract for a further period of one year, in terms of Clause K of the N.I.T dated 28.03.2025

¶12

(Annexure P-2). The petitioner further prays for quashing of the subsequent tender dated 23.06.2026 (Annexure P-5), issued by respondent No. 2.

¶13

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶14

2

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that he is providing

¶16

ECG services round the clock to the patients and other necessary services in Dr. R.P. Govt. Medical College, Kangra at Tanda, District Kangra, H.P. It is further averred that a huge amount has been invested in machinery and technical equipments.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are total 7 ECG machines and the staff strength is 10 members. In this regard, a representation dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure P-2) has been made to respondent No. 2 regarding the extension of the contract by invocation of Clause K of the N.I.T and the subsequent agreement dated 22.05.2025. The same reads as under:-

¶18

“K. PERIOD OF CONTRACT: 1. The contract will be initially for a period of one year from the date of award contract and the same can be extended for maximum of two years by the Medical Superintendent-cumMember Secretary, RKS on mutual agreement and on the basis of satisfactory services render on the same rate, terms and conditions on year to year basis or till the finalization of the new E-EOI whichever is earlier.”

¶19

3

¶20

Learned Addl. Advocate General for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submit that the term of the contract has come to an end, as the period of contract was from 01.06.2025 to 31.05.2026 and the petitioner has participated in the subsequent tender dated 23.06.2026 (Annexure P-5).

¶21

Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that once the clause itself provides for the extension of the tender and even the present tender, which has now been floated, contains a similar provision, and it is not disputed that the petitioner is still carrying on after 31.05.2026 and is still providing services, it would be appropriate that the representation of the petitioner for extension be duly considered on merits as such.

¶22

Since the clause provides as to the mutuality and viz. the satisfactory services rendered on the same rates and terms and conditions on a year-to-year basis, the said factual matrix as to whether any show cause notice was ever issued for unsatisfactory performance during the contract period and, therefore, it would be the right of the petitioner for

¶23

4

¶24

consideration of invoking the said clause, which has to be done by respondent No. 2.

¶25

Resultantly, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner within a period of 10 days from today. The decision shall contain valid reasons and the competent authority shall pass a speaking order. Needless to say, till the decision of the said representation, the subsequent tender dated 23.06.2026, shall not be awarded to any person. 8. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s),

¶26

if any.

¶27

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶28

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶29

16^th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)

Bansal Enterprises v. the State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bansal Enterprises v. the State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Vs Engenrin Hydro Power Limited

Ravinder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp and Others

court on its own motion Vs State of Hp

State of Hp and Others Vs Leela Devi

Chander Kala Vs the State of Hp and Others