IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP No. 12873 of 2025

Date of decision: 03.12.2025

Piar Chand Chauhan …Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & Ors. f…Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporrting?

For the Petitioner:Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional

oAdvocate General.

G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral)

The challenge in the present case is to the

cahncellation of the tender vide corrigendum dated 20.06.2025.

g2. A perusal of Annexure P-7 would go on to show that

vide said communication the tender which was to be opened on 02.06.2025 was cancelled due to Administrative/Technical

grounds.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that this is third time tender has been cancelled, which was for the “Upgradation of Tikker Manoh Road, which was under NABARD Scheme and there were two works as such, while referring to Annexure P-1. It is accordingly pointed out that on the first instance the tender had been issued on 03.05.2025, which was to be opened on 17.05.2025 but cancelled on 21.05.2025 and

thereafter fresh tender was floated on 22.05.2025, which was to be opened on 31.05.2025 but before that it was cancelled on 30.05.2025. Therefore, he has argued that the action of the respondents is totally arbitrary and the petitioner’s right as such to compete and bid for the said tender fhas been taken away on account of vested interests of certain set of employees of the State, who wish to favour certain other contractors.

4. Counsel for trhe State, on the other hand, while referring to his written statement and documents, has pointed out that there are two works and total four and seven number of bids, as sCuch, had been received including the bid of petitioner contractor and it was found that gift deed at some locations behtween R/D 5/760 to 5/775 via Dhirwin and between R/D 7/000 gto 12/95 via Jakhyol Ramehra Sulkhan side was required for cutting/removal of formation deficiency of this road. It is submitted that gift deed, as such, was sought to be obtained but the officials as such could not get the gift deed from the land owners and accordingly submitted that due to instructions issued vide letter dated 26.03.2025, the responsibility would be fixed on the concerned officials regarding the compensation amount to be recovered from them as such the tenders had been cancelled on account of non-availability of gift deed and only the ‘No Objection Certificate’ had been sought to be furnished.

5. Reference is again made to the letter dated 26.05.2025 to the Assistant Engineer, HPPWD Sub Division Bhoranj by the Executive Engineer, Bhoranj Division, HPPWD Bhoranj, to convey the latest status of gift deed for the construction of the road in question. It fis, thus, submitted while referring to the various communications that the authorities were aware of the urgency and need of the widening of the road and were attempting to gert the requisite gift deed while referring to the proposal of the office of Gram Panchayat, Bhakhera, dated 17.06.2025, wherein it has been mentioned that land owners were onlyC ready to give No Objection Certificate but they have refused to give gift deeds.

6.hSimilarly, reference is also made to another letter gdated 18.06.2025, wherein the Assistant Engineer had communicated to Executive Engineer that land owners were informed about the importance of the road and widening of the road which was not possible without gift deeds being executed, but the land owners were only ready to give No Objection Certificate but they were not ready to give gift deeds and necessary report had been submitted.

7. It is, thus, categorical case of the State that on account of the said instructions and the responsibility fixed on the officials-respondents, the tenders have been duly cancelled.

We are satisfied with the explanation as such given.

8. It is settled principle