In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the

following relief:

(i)

Issue a writ in the nature of declaration or

order quashing the order dated 22.01.2021 bearing

No.IN LIEN OF IAFD-931 passed by the respondent

No.3 vide Annexure-Z.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or

directions directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to

reconsider the bids bearing no.gem/2020/b/901417,

gem/2020/b/901408,

gem/2020/b/901386,

gem/2020/b/901335,

gem/2020/b/900702,

gem/2020/b/900593,

gem/2020/b/900562

and

gem/2020/b

/899919

dated

03.12.2020

vide

annexure-e to m by taking into consideration the

clause

in

bid

documents

in

situation

where

commercial bids are equal value, bidder with

experience in providing service as desired by dept

and also experience in defence/govt. dept. will be

considered.

- 4 -

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned

Central

Government

Standing

Counsel

Sri

M.B.Kanavi appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and

learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7 and perused the

material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that during

pendency of the present petition, the respondent Nos.5, 6

and 7, who were the successful bidders have completed

work pursuant to the work order issued on 25.02.2021,

prior to the interim order passed by this Court. Learned

CGSC appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned

counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7 submit that in

view of the completion of the tender work by the

respondent Nos.5 to 7, during the pendency of the

petition, the present petition does not survive for

consideration and same may be disposed off as having

become infructuous.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites my

attention to the interim order passed by this Court in order

- 5 -

to point out that the rival contentions urged by both sides

are to be decided at the time of final disposal off the

petition. In this context, he invites my attention to the

interim order passed by this Court dated 01.03.2021 and

22.02.2022 in order to point out that petition has not been

rendered infructuous.

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate

that the primary challenge made in the present petition is

to the order impugned at Annexure-Z dated 22.01.2021,

whereby the impugned tender was granted in favour of the

respondent Nos.5 to 7 and the bid of the petitioner was

rejected. As stated supra, the tender work has been

completed by the respondent Nos.5 to 7 and consequently,

challenge to the impugned order at Annexure-Z dated

22.01.2021, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

instant case would not survive for consideration any longer

since entire work has been completed.

6. Insofar as the reliance placed on the interim

orders passed by this Court are concerned, the said

- 6 -

interim orders cannot be made the basis to come to the

conclusion that the present petition still survives for

consideration particularly when the entire tender work has

already bee completed. Insofar as the loss caused to the

petitioner on account of the respondents is concerned,

liberty is hereby reserved in favour of the petitioner to

take recourse to such remedies as available in law

including taking action against the respondents for

recovery of any loss alleged to have been caused to the

petitioner.

7. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the

man power supplied by the petitioner pursuant to the

earlier tender is continued is concerned, the said

circumstance also cannot be relied upon to come to the

conclusion that the relief sought for by the petitioner

would survive for consideration despite the tender work

have been completed. It is however made clear that any

loss is caused to the petitioner, or if any benefit has

accrued in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 or the

- 7 -

respondent Nos.1 to 4 by virtue of the petitioner’s man

power being continued during carrying out the work in

terms of the tender, liberty is reserved in favour of the

petitioner to take recourse to such remedie