Back
VIPIN SANGHI, RAKESH THAPLIYAL
Mukesh Tomar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Service on respondent No. 4 is complete. However, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4 to defend these proceedings. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. We have, therefore, proceeded to hear this petition, and we proceed to dispose of the same.
2. The petitioner has preferred this petition to assail its technical disqualification by the respondent authorities in respect of the tender submitted by the petitioner for the work, namely, construction of boundary wall of Science City at Jhajhra, Dehradun, for which the respondent authorities invited bids vide the NIT dated 22.06.2023. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the award of the work to respondent No. 4, on the ground that the said respondent–contractor was actually technically disqualified, and was wrongly held to be technically qualified by the respondents.
3. The reason for petitioner’s disqualification communicated by the respondents are found in two communications. The first communication / Office Order dated 21.07.2023 was issued by the respondent in r
The State is obliged to act transparently and fairly in awarding public contracts, and cannot favor or discriminate against any party.
Bidders must comply strictly with tender requirements; misleading information and poor performance can result in disqualification. Judicial review in tender cases should maintain restraint, supportin....
Compliance with tender conditions, including financial capacity, submission of necessary documents, and establishment of required past experience, is crucial for the acceptance of bids.
Judicial restraint is paramount in administrative contract disputes, with equal opportunity granted to bidders for document rectification to avoid discrimination.
A bid submitted by a joint-venture must be maintained by the entity as a whole; failure to comply with tender requirements results in disqualification.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, not the merits of the tender conditions, which are determined by the tendering authority.
The court upheld the tendering authority's discretion in setting eligibility criteria, emphasizing limited judicial review focused on procedural fairness rather than the merits of the decision.
The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid due to failure to meet registration requirements, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial review.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
