The completion of tender work renders petitions challenging associated orders infructuous, reinforcing the principle that interim orders do not sustain claims post-factum.

ORDER

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.

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 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 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 respondent Nos.1 to 4 by virtue of the petition