Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/470/2026 of PRADEEP TOMAR Vs DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION on 18 June 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY June 18, 2026 Writ Petition (M/B) No.470 of 2026 Pradeep Tomar ----Petitioner Versus Department of Irrigation & Another
UKHC010098162026
2026:UHC:5032-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
June 18, 2026
Writ Petition (M/B) No.470 of 2026
Pradeep Tomar
----Petitioner
Versus
Department of Irrigation & Another
----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C. J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the notice dated 02.06.2026 issued by respondent no.4, whereby the Notice Inviting Tender for reconstruction of Gangasu Right Canal, has been cancelled on the ground that only one responsive bid has been received, i.e., of the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner has been noted in our previous order dated 08.06.2026, which is as follows:-
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case, six other bids were found to be non-responsive and the bid of the petitioner was the sole bid left, there was no occasion for the respondents to have opened the financial bid of the petitioner. However, the respondents had opened the financial bid of the petitioner even before the other bidders were declared as non- responsive. The respondents, thus, had the idea that the petitioner’s bid was the lowest and, therefore, they manufactured
UKHC010098162026
2026:UHC:5032-DB
a ground, namely, that the documents in hard copy had not been supplied by other bidders to declare them non-responsive and, thereby, leaving the bid of the petitioner as the only bid. On the said ground, the entire process has been cancelled, which, according to the petitioner, is a result of a premeditated design on part of the respondents and was orchestrated by them as they knew that the bid of the person of their choice was higher as compared to that of the petitioner.
3. In view of the nature of controversy, we direct the respondents to place before us the details of financial bids of all other bidders as well. In case the bids of other bidders, who have been declared non-responsive, have not been opened, but since the process has already been cancelled, therefore, in order to ascertain the merits of the case of the petitioner, we require the respondents to open their financial bids as well.”
4. In compliance of the said direction, learned State Counsel has placed on record the details of the financial bids of all the bidders and from where it transpires that there were several bids which were less than that of the petitioner. As such, the very basis on which the writ petition has been filed, is found to be incorrect.
5. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 18.06.2026 Rajni