Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.
Arun Azad - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P and Others - Respondents
CWP No.4512 of 2025
Decided On : 09-04-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Addl. A.G. and Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G., Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Executive Engineer, Dharampur is also present along-with the records.
The court emphasized the necessity of thorough examination of records in tender processes and mandated an inquiry against the Executive Engineer for procedural lapses.
Headnote:
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - The petitioner sought to quash a tender issued to a private respondent and to complete a previous tender by clearing outstanding bills. The court noted serious allegations regarding the awarding of work already executed by the petitioner to another party. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Inquiry - The court ordered an inquiry against the Executive Engineer for procedural lapses in awarding tenders. The inquiry is to be concluded by 31st July, 2025. (Paras 5-6)
(C) Compliance - The court directed the respondents to release payments for completed works by the petitioner. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged that work completed by him was re-awarded to another party without proper notice. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the petitioner's claims.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the grievances of the petitioner and noted that the inquiry against the Executive Engineer was initiated.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the tender awarded to the private respondent and the procedural lapses in the awarding of work.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for thorough examination of records and the importance of timely completion of works awarded to the petitioner.
Result: Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
i) That a writ in nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued and the tender issued on dated 06-01-2025 (Annexure P-4) to the private respondent be quashed and set aside.
ii) That the petitioner be allowed to complete the tender issued on dated 08-02-2023 by clearing the previous bills of this tender.
iii) That the inquiry be initiated against the respondent no. 4 i.e. Executive Engineer Dharampur HPPPWD Division for issuing a tender of work which has already been completed by the present petitioner.”
2. On 02.04.2025, the Court passed the following order:-
“On 27.03.2025, the Court passed the following order:-
“Extremely serious allegations have been made in this petition with regard to the work already executed by the petitioner, which now has been awarded in favour of respondent No.5 by changing the name of head of the work. This indeed is a serious allegation. Therefore, in such circumstances, issue notice to the official respondents, at this stage. Mr. Raj Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. Let record of the case be produced on 01.04.2025.”
2. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the respondents have produced records, which prima facie go to indicate that the allegations levelled by the petitioner somewhat appear to be correct.
3. Therefore, let respondents No. 1 to 4 file their reply(ies)on the affidavit(s) sworn by respondent No. 3 i.e. Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Dharampur, District Mandi, within one week.
4. We make it clear that such affidavit, needless to say, shall be filed after thorough examination of the records in question.
5. List on 09.04.2025. In the meanwhile, dasti notice be issued for the service of respondent No. 5, returnable for the next date of hearing, on taking steps during the course of the day.”
3. The respondents have filed reply and it shall be apt to reproduce para 2 of the preliminary submissions, which read as under:-
2. That the respondents in response to the plea raised by the petitioner in his writ petition submits that the following works were awarded to the petitioner by the respondents vide different award letters:
| 1. | C/o Giun Druman Banerdi Road 0/00 to 3/545 (near Ubek Jalpa Mata Road) (SH:F/C mtrs wide at RD 0/400 to 0/900). |
| 2. | C/o Giun Druman Banerdi Road 0/00 to 3/345 (near Ubek Jalpa Mata Road) (SH:F/C mtrs wide in KM 1/300 to 1/600). |
| 3. | C/o Giun Druman Banerdi Road 0/00 to 3/345 (near Ubek Jalpa Mata Road) (SH:F/C mtrs wide in KM 1/600 to 1/900). |
| 4. | C/o Link Road Giun Druman Banerdi in KM o/0 to 3/345 (Near Ubek Druman Bus Stand Jalpa Mata Road) (SH: F/C 5/7 mtrs wide in 2/400 to 2/900). |
| 5. | C/o Link road Giun Druman Banerdi in KM 0/0 to 3/345 (Near Ubek Druman Bus Stand Jalpa Mata Road) (SH: F/C 5/7 mtrs wide in 2/900 to 3/200). |
| 6. | C/o Link road Giun Druman Banerdi in KM 0/0 to 3/345 (Near Ubek Druman Bus Stand Jalpa Mata Road) (SH: F/C 5/7 mtrs wide in 3/200 to 3/345). |
The petitioner has competed the work mentioned at Sr. No. 1 & 2. He has done part work of Sr.No.3 from Rd.1/670 to 1/730 out of Rd. No. 1/600 to 1/900 and rest of the work have not been executed and completed by the petitioner. The stipulated period of completion of the work had already expired on 25.09.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to start the execution work mentioned at Sr.No.4 to 6 till date while the same has been awarded to him vide award dated. 08.02.2023, 15.02.2023, and 15.02.2023. The copies of award dated Qua the Sr.No.4 to 6 are attached herewith as FILED TODA ANNEXURE R-1 to R-III for the perusal 08 APR of this Hon'ble Court. The time period specified for execution of work has been already expired 21.03.2023, 30.04.20213 and 30.04.2023. He has never been applied for extension of time for the execution of work nor the same has replying respondent has ever been extended the time for execution of
