JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The stage of the proceedings of the writ petition, at which this Court is called upon to consider the stay vacation application, for the purposes of scrutinizing the veracity of the interim order dated 18.11.2021, which has been passed by the court in a contractual matter, where it effects the Work Package No. 07-08 for Stage II work of motor road from Rati Ghat to Budhlakot, is required to be considered, as to whether at all there could be a stay of the tendering process, by virtue and as a consequential effect of which, would be that the entire work of a project for laying down the roads in the hill areas has been kept at a halt.

2. This Court has had to refer to each of the elaborate arguments, which has been extended by the learned counsels, for the petitioner, as well as, that of the respondents, wherein the counsel for the petitioner has rather contended, that grant of an interim order in the instant case was imminent because in the absence of the same it would have completely rendered the lis itself infructuous, wherein in the writ petition the petitioner has put a challenge to the order of 30.11.2011, as uploaded 01.11.2021, which was passed by the respondents employer rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner, in the tendering process which has been initiated as a consequence of the invitation of bids in pursuance to the publication Reference No. 1421/11-02/(XIX) ITCO/URRDA/21 dated 01.09.2021.

3. It becomes inevitable for this Court to avoid to consider the backdrop, though in a precise manner, to answer the argument which has been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted, that it is a sole proprietorship firm, which has been registered, as an A class contractor with the PWD Department and is engaged in the work of construction of roads and as per the invitation of bids by NIT dated 01.09.2021, issued by URRDA in respect of the aforesaid work package. The petitioner submitted, that as per the tender summary report of 9th October 2021, when it was uploaded by the respondents, the bid of the petitioner along with the seven other bidders were held to be technically responsive in terms of Clause 22.5 of the standard bidding document.

4. The petitioner submits, that once the petitioner’s bid has been declared as to be a technically responsive bid by an order of 09.10.2021 in that eventuality the impugned action, which has been taken by the respondents on the basis of a private complaint, which was submitted by the respondent no. 5, herein on 13.10.2021, whereby while taking a decision on the same, the petitioner’s bid was technically held to be non-responsive by the order dated 01.11.2021, for the grounds which has been mentioned in the impugned order. The petitioner had submitted, that while the objections which were raised by the private respondent no. 5, to the bid submitted by the petitioner and after its declaration as to be technically viable, the petitioner submitted in the reply dated 14.10.2021, while replying to show cause dated 13.10.2021 that as per the standard bidding document Section 2, which was an instruction to the bidders and the appendix attached to the standard building document in its ITB 4.4 B)(b)(i), which is extracted hereunder:

“(4.4.B)(b)(i)

The key equipments for road works

and field testing laboratory Road

Works are:

For Road works.”

5. He has submitted that he has placed on record the papers of three “tractors” which were required to be furnished by the prospective bidders, as one of the pre-condition to be full filled in order to establish the availability of the required technical equipment, which would be required for the purposes of execution of the work of construction of road, as covered by the bidding process adopted by the respondents.

6. A very interesting distinction has been carved out by the counsel for the petitioner, that if the standard bidding document itself is taken into consideration, which stipulated tha