SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9652

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
ATUL SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP/11002/2023



Petitioner Advocates:Dalip Kumar Sharma Rakesh Chauhan Rajesh Kumar ,Respondent Advocate: Dhiraj Thakur Priyanka Chandel Umesh Kanwar AG

##PAGE1##

( 2025:HHC:46433 ).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.11002 of 2023

Decided on: 29.12.2025

Atul Sharma ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ....Respondents

Coram

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

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior

C Advocate with Mr. Sparsh

Bhushan, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh,

Additional Advocate General, for

respondents No.1 to 4-State.

: Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate, for

i respondent No.5.

: Mr. Umesh Kanwar and Ms. Isha

Thakur, Advocates, for

respondent No.6.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) .

Challenge in the present writ petition is sought for

quashing and setting aside the corrigendum dated 15.11.2023

(Annexure P-2), wherein the condition as such was fixed for the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 05:27:39 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

Hot Mix Plant of the bidder to be at a distance of 30.00 km from

the work in place where the metlling of the road was to be done.

2. The tender in question was for the work

improvement/strengthening of Banethi Bagthan Rajgarh Chandol

road km 7/0 to 28/0 & 48/0 to 87/0 (SH:- Providing and laying

WBM-III, Bituminous Macadam, Bituminous concrete,

interlocking paver blocks, PCC V-shape drain, parapets, road

marking and road sign broards) under NABARD-XXVIII Scheme.

The tender had been awarded on 10.11.2023 and it was opened

on 23.11.2023.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted

tha t the said condition was incorporated for favouring respondent

No.5 and respondent No.6 another bidder as such did not have

the requisite Hot Mix Palnt in existence on 18.11.2023 and

therefore with a view to give undue advantage to both the

respondents they were held to be qualified in the technical bid

and the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner had taken

place. Apparently, the petition had been filed by the petitioner on

29.12.2023 after the technical bid as such of the petitioner had

been duly considered and it had been found that he did not have

the qualifying criteria of Hot Mixing Plant within 30.00 km and

was not qualified.

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 05:27:39 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

4. It has now, in subsequent pleadings, come on record

that eventually the Award as such was given to respondent No.5

on 02.02.2024 and it is also stated that he has .completed the

Contract as such, which would be clear from the additional

affidavit now filed by the respondents No.1 to 4-State.

5. It is not disputed that respondent No.5 who had been

awarded the Contract as such had the necessary certificate

issued by the Assistrant Enginner, Rajgarh Sub-Division,

HPPWD, Rajgarh on 18.11.2023 (Annexure P-10), wherein it

has been mentioned that the Contractor had installed the Hot Mix

Plant on CNYK road at RD 40/200 at 29 km away from the

BB RC.

6. It is also pertinent to notice that as per the Invitation

for Bids (IFB) issued itself, as per Clause 14, the necessary

condition had already been incorporated. The same reads as

under:-

“14. Machinery/Plant and Lab Equipment Detail

proof ownership and Plant/machinery installed

within 30.00 km certificate signed and

issued/verified from the concerned Assistant

Engineer.”

7. It is thus apparent that the argument now raised that

it was for a tailor made as such by way of introduction by the

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 05:27:39 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

4

corrigendum, is without any basis. It is from day one as such that

the necessary requisite condition had been prescribed.

8. Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4-State has also

referred to the requirement of such a Plant within easy reach,

while referring to the communication dated 21.12.2023

(Annexure R-IV) that the work of metlling/tarring of the road of

bitumen material has to be carried through road and the road

was very narrow, too lonrg and as such to carry the bitumen to a

large distance and maintain to requisite temperature is very

d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top