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

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 25955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS – Respondent



(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:1)

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:1)

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:24)ti(cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:31) (cid:1)

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:22)!"#(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:22)#$%&%(cid:24)’((cid:1)(cid:3))ti(cid:28)(cid:2)ti(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:1)

*!’+##,(cid:1)-./!0(cid:1)

…Petitioner Versus *"!"#(cid:1)(cid:24)(cid:27)(cid:1)(cid:16).’1!2(cid:1)!’+(cid:1)(cid:24)"3#0&(cid:1)

…Respondents (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:7)

(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:4)

Present:(cid:17) Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Pandher, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)*****

(cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:2)(cid:24)ti(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:7)

1. Prayer in this writ(cid:17)petition is for quashing/setting(cid:17)aside proceedings dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P(cid:17)2) of respondent No.4(cid:17)District Tender Committee; order dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure P(cid:17)5) passed by respondent No.3(cid:17)First Appellate Authority and order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P(cid:17)7) passed by respondent No.2(cid:17)Second Appellate Authority.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, being fully eligible, participated in tender process initiated by respondents on 29.07.2025 for ‘Transportation work of Foods grains & Stock Articles for the year 2025(cid:17)27’ (01.10.2025 to 31.03.2027) in terms of ‘The Punjab Foodgrains Transportation Policy, 2025’ in Nurpur Bedi Cluster. It is submitted that tender for Nurpur Bedi Cluster with total capacity of 28053 MTs, required 90 trucks of 9 MT each (810 MT) under Clause 5A Note III of Policy with truck details verified via Vahan and Parivahan Portals. Petitioner submitted 45 trucks with total capacity of 918.490 MTs along(cid:17) with RCs and Portal verification. Petitioner’s technical bid was rejected on 21.08.2025 on the ground that it did not fulfil conditions in terms of Clause

5(A) of Policy.

3. Petitioner filed an appeal on 31.08.2025 in terms of Clause 15 of Policy, challenging proceedings dated 21.08.2025. First Appellate Authority dismissed petitioner’s appeal. Aggrieved therefrom, second appeal was filed on 20.09.2025. However, the same, it is submitted, was dismissed vide a non(cid:17)speaking order dated 06.10.2025. Department came to the conclusion that petitioner has not complied with conditions under clause 5A Note III of the Policy as some of the vehicles in the list of 45 vehicles were not insured. It is submitted that this cannot be a ground to reject the technical bid of the petitioner as it is not a ground in the applicable policy or tender. It is, further, submitted that out of 08 vehicles reference of which is made in order dated 06.10.2025 passed by Second Appellate Authority, 03 of the vehicles were va

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top