IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2305 of 2023 Reserved on:23.11.2023 Pronounced on: 11.12.2023 M/s Kharbanda Electricals ……Petitioner Versus f State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents _____________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioCner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta and Mr.

h Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Arsh Rattan & Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals.

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice In this Writ petition, petitioner is challenging Annexure P-8 office order dt. 18.04.2023, cancelling the tender awarded to the petitioner for the work “C/o Zila Parishad Bhawan at Shimla (SH:

Providing Elevator Earthing pressurization and an civil work”.

Background facts

2) The petitioner is a partnership firm . It is a Class-A Contra.ctor with the Public Works Department for carrying out electrical works. According to the petitioner as per terms of its enlistment, it is eligible to submit tenders up to any limit in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It also claimed to have successfully completed works of various magnitude awarded to it to the entire satisfaction of its employers.

3) Vide Annexure o P-2, dt. 16.02.1999, its application for renewal of its enlCistment as Class-A Contractor for electrical works in the Public Works Department, was renewed upto 31.03.2023.

The tender dt.13.3.2023

4) The 3^rd respondent had published a e-Procurement Tender Notice on 13.03.2023 at 17.00 hours through online mode for the above work, having sanctioned an amount of Rs.28,58,180/-.

5) Petitioner, being eligible for the works in question, submitted its bid in online mode on the notified website and uploaded/submitted all requisite documents on 23.03.2023.

6) Four technical bids with respect to the said work were opened and evaluated on 27.03.2023 in the office of the Execu.tive Engineer, Electrical Division No.UU, HPPWD, Shimla (for short ‘the Executive Engineer’) (respondent no.3).

7) They were uploaded on 31.03.2023 due to some technical problem on the official website of the respondents.

8) Petitioner qualified in the technical bid alongwith two other bidders.

9) Subsequently, o the financial bids of those qualifying the technicalC criteria were opened on 31.03.2023 at 11.30 a.m. and the petitioner was declared as the lowest bidder (L-1) having quoted Rs.24,99,998/- against the sanctioned amount of Rs.28,58,180/-.

The letter of award dt.31.3.2023 to petitioner

10) Subsequently, a letter of award Annexure P-7 dt. 31.03.2023 was issued to the petitioner by the respondents.

The impugned order dt.18.4.2023 cancelling the award of tender

11) While the petitioner was in the process of mobilizing resources for execution of the said work, the impugned office order was issued on 18.04.2023 (Annexure P-8) cancelling the award of work to petitioner giving the following reasons : .

a) Financial bid of the responsive bidder had been opened on 31.03.2023 at 11.30 a.m. without affording adequate time to raise objection of one number non-responsive bidder;

b) The work has been awarded on a very narrow period without going through provisions/instructions;

c) To maintain the transparency of guidelines envisaged under the Central Vigilance Commission as well as hStandard Operative Procedure of CPWD and Standard gBidding Document of Technical Qualification Criteria, which were allegedly not followed and overlooked by the then Executive Engineer at the time of preparing the tender documents;

d) There was no budgetary provision for the work; &

e) To avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Contentions of petitioner

12) Petitioner contends that: .

(a) the said cancellation order is issued malafide at the behest of the unresponsive bidder andH for the benefit of the said unresponsive bidder; the tim e line cont