Dismissed¶27

Sanjeev Kumar v. the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2025CWP/3556/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tender dispute; sugar bag handling contract, crushing season 2024-2025; Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills; Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mill; challenge to rejection of technical bid as unresponsive; writ petition dismissed as misconceived; mootness/completion of allotted work; attained finality via speaking order dated 16.11.2024; petitioner's withdrawal of bid; unexplained delay in filing (February 2025); costs refrained; CWP-3556-2025 (O&M); related matter CWP-29875-2024; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Judges Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma; decision dated 25.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is misconceived and devoid of any merit. ¶22

Sanjeev Kumar Vs the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-3), whereby the technical bid of respondent No.3 was held unresponsive, and the consequent allotment of the tender to respondent No.3, were liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The writ petition is misconceived and devoid of any merit.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The impugned proceedings dated 25.10.2024, earlier challenged in CWP-29875-2024, have attained finality after the speaking order dated 16.11.2024; most of the allotted work has been completed, and the petitioner had himself withdrawn his bid at the relevant time.

¶22

Key takeaways

There is no explanation, leave alone a reasonable explanation, for filing the writ petition in February 2025 challenging the order dated 16.11.2024; on this factual matrix the matter called for imposition of cost.ratio¶22
Although the matter called for imposition of cost, the Court refrained from imposing any costs at the fervent request of learned counsel for the petitioner.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Lisa Gill, J., oral; with Sudeepti Sharma, J.) dismissed CWP-3556-2025, filed in February 2025 by Sanjeev Kumar challenging the allotment of the Handling of Sugar Bag tender (Detailed NIT dated 06.10.2024, Crushing Season 2024-2025, floated by respondent No.2) to respondent No.3, and seeking setting aside of proceedings dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) whereby respondent No.3's technical bid was held unresponsive. The impugned proceedings had earlier been challenged in CWP-29875-2024 (Vikram Singh), which was disposed of on 05.11.2024 leading to a speaking order dated 16.11.2024 of the General Manager, The Morinda Cooperation Sugar Mill, Morinda (Ropar), recording that Vikram Singh, the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar and Mahinder Pal had withdrawn their bids; the impugned proceedings thereby attained finality. Most of the allotted work stood completed and no explanation was offered for the delay in filing; the petition was held misconceived and dismissed, though costs were spared at counsel's fervent request.

CWP-3556-2025 (O&M)

-1-

113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP-3556-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.04.2025

Sanjeev Kumar

......Petitioner

Vs.

The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. and others

¶10

......Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶12

Present: Mr. Vishal Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶14

¶15

LISA GILL, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside proceedings dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-3), whereby technical bid of respondent No.3 was held to be unresponsive.

¶17

It is a matter of record that Detailed Notice Inviting Tender dated 06.10.2024 was floated by respondent No.2 for contract of Handling of Sugar Bag for Crushing Season 2024-2025. Present petitioner, along with three others, had submitted their bids. Acceptance of tender of respondent No.3 was subject to challenge in CWP-29875-2024 filed by one of the tenderers, namely Vikram Singh. This writ petition was disposed of on

¶18

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.05.05 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-3556-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶20

05.11.2024 while noting the stand of affected parties, wherein it was agreed that competent authority would pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of hearing to concerned parties. Consequent thereto, order dated 16.11.2024 was passed by General Manager, The Morinda Cooperation Sugar Mill, Morinda (Ropar), wherein it is noted that one Vikram Singh had withdrawn his tender and his representation was rejected. Issues as raised were also considered in the speaking order. It is further recorded in speaking order dated 16.11.2024 that along with Vikram Singh, present petitioner i.e. Sanjeev Kumar and another bidder Mahinder Pal had also withdrawn their bids. Present petition has now been filed in February, 2025, challenging the allotment of tender to respondent No.3.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

We find no merit in this writ petition which is in fact misconceived and devoid of any merit. It is a matter of record and not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner that most of the allotted work has been completed. Further, it is a matter of record that impugned proceedings dated 25.10.2024, earlier challenged in CWP-29875-2024, have attained finality after passing of speaking order dated 16.11.2024. It is a matter of record that present petitioner had withdrawn his bid at the relevant time. There is no explanation, leave alone a reasonable explanation for filing this writ petition in February, 2025 for challenging order dated 16.11.2024. Keeping in view the factual matrix as above, matter calls for imposition of

¶23

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.05.05 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP-3556-2025 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

cost, however, at fervent request of learned counsel for the petitioner, we refrain from imposing any costs.

¶27