The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition challenging tender eligibility criteria. Counsel reported the tender was cancelled and replaced. The court held no further proceeding was necessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1962 of 2020
With
I.A. No. 505 of 2021
M/s N. P. Construction, through its proprietor, Shri Pramod Singh, Chas, Bokaro
….. Petitioner
Versus
CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amritansh Vats For the Respondents: Mr. Mohan Dubey, A.C to A.G
04/02.02.2021 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the technical eligibility experience as contained in the Eligibility Criteria, Annexure-VI, of Bid Invitation (BI) No. 7000012837 for operation and battery maintenance of COB dated 22.04.2020 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent No.6 whereby the respondents have kept the technical eligibility clause i.e. “Experience having successfully completed similar work in the same name as also the same type/category of the enterprise/style during last seven (07) years ending last day of month previous to the one in which tenders are invited should be either of the following”.
I.A. No. 505 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking amendment in the present writ petition by impleading additional prayers and also for amendment in the cause title of the present writ petition by replacing the private respondent No.7 with the proposed respondent No.7.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to paragraph 3 of the present interlocutory application, submits that the respondents have cancelled the tender in question. However, they have proceeded to issue a fresh tender incorporating the same terms and conditions by which the petitioner feeling aggrieved has filed the present writ petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the respondents have already cancelled the tender in question, there is no need to further proceed with the present writ petition.
The present writ petition including the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 505 of 2021) is accordingly disposed of.
The petitioner is however at liberty to challenge the fresh tender said to have been issued by the respondents, as permissible under law, if so advised.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
Satish/-
M/s N. P. Construction
Steel Authority of India Ltd.
M/s Fosbel India Private Limited
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
