Mehrotra Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Representative Ram Sahare Jaisval Vs Patratu Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.

For the Petitioners : M/s. Jatin Sehgal, Ashish Garg, Shailesh Poddar, Advocates For the Resp.-RITES : Mr. Biren Podar, Sr. Advocate M/s. Piyush Poddar, Deepak Sinha, Manav Poddar, Advocates

¶29

14/11.03.2024 Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.

¶30

All these three writ applications seem to be show-cause notices, banning of the writ petitioner as well as dismissal of its appeal.

¶31

On 06.03.2024 considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Biren Poddar, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent-RITES was directed to take instruction as to

¶32

2.

¶33

whether the petitioner can participate in any tender floated by RITES Ltd. at present or in future.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is primarily concerned with the Respondent-RITES preventing the petitioner from participating in any future bids.

¶35

Mr. Biren Poddar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-RITES has submitted before us the instruction which has been received by him, a copy of which has already been served to learned counsel for the petitioner, which reads as follows:

¶36

(i) Since the banning of business dealings with MBPL has expired on 07.02.2024, the bid individually submitted by MBPL shall be considered for evaluation by RITES Ltd.;

¶37

(ii) However, in case where MBPL submits bid as a JV with any other member who is banned, then such JV bid will not be considered for evaluation by RITES Ltd.

¶38

It has been specifically laid down that the bid individually submitted by MBPL shall be considered for evaluation by RITES Ltd., though in case where MBPL submits bid as a joint venture with any other member who is banned, then such joint venture bid will not be considered for evaluation by RITES Ltd.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner may apply for any bid on an individual capacity or a joint venture with any other member who is not banned.

¶40

The grievance of the petitioner in view of the instructions received by Mr. Poddar learned senior counsel appearing for the RespondentRITES seems to have been redressed as the prayer made in all these writ applications were confined to participation of the petitioner in future bids floated by RITES Ltd.

¶41

¶42

We, therefore, dispose of all these writ applications in view of the clarification/undertaking given by respondent RITES Ltd, and which we have been noted above. Pending I.As, if any, stands closed.

¶43

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶44

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶45

Jk

Mehrotra Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Representative Ram Sahare Jaisval v. Patratu Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehrotra Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorized Representative Ram Sahare Jaisval v. Patratu Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.

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

Vikas Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

Adalat Deshwali Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary And Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Yadav President Centre 4 Rti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hilltop- Bkb (Jv) through Its Partner Alok Kumar Agarwal Vs Coal India Limited through Its Chairman

Sundari Marandi Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Mahto Vs Home Department