Disposed¶27

M/S Dillip Pharmaceuticals, Bbsr. v. Union of India

Orissa HC12 Feb 2025WP(C)/4156/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC writ petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition; GeM tender GEM/2024/B/5682258 (bid document dated 16.12.2024); technical bid of M/s. Dillip Pharmaceuticals rejected as technically unresponsive by Opposite Party No. 2; reasons for rejection received during pendency; no adjudication of legality or arbitrariness of rejection; coram K.R. Mohapatra and S.K. Mishra; order dated 12.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the subsequent development. ¶27

M/S Dillip Pharmaceuticals, Bbsr. Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) NO.4156 OF 2025 M/s. Dillip Pharmaceuticals, …. Petitioner Bhubaneswar

¶3

Mr. Tarun Pattnaik, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Union of India and others

¶6

…. Opp. Parties

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

¶8

& JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

12.02.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for the

¶15

following relief:

¶16

“ In the circumstances it is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships be graciously pleased to issue:

¶17

(a) A writ of mandamus to the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 to accept the bid of the Petitioner as technically responsive and consequently, direct the Opposite Party No. 2 to open the financial bid of the Petitioner forthwith; and/or

¶18

(b) Declaration that the rejection of the bid of the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No. 2 as technically unresponsive as illegal & arbitrary;

¶19

(c) Alternatively, quash the entire tender process initiated by the Opposite Party No. 2 pursuant to bid document dated 16.12.2024 bearing Number GEM/2024/B/5682258.

¶20

AND

¶21

Pass any other Order/Orders, Writ/Writs, direction/ directions as deem fit and proper.

¶22

And for which act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶23

Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits

¶24

that in the meantime, the Petitioner has received the reasons for

¶25

Page 1 of 2

¶26

rejection of its technical bid. In view of such development, he prays for withdrawal of the writ petition seeking liberty to file a fresh one challenging the subsequent development made in the meantime.

¶27