Sikkim High Court
WP(C)/16/2021 of Norden Dorjee Shangderpa Vs the Executive Engineer, CPWD on 3 November 2022
COURT OF SIKKIM Record of proceedings W.P. (C) No. 16 of 2021 NORDEN DORJEE SHANGDERPA .... PETITIONER VERSUS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CPWD .... RESPONDENT Date: 03.11.2022 CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J. For Petitioner : Mr. Jorgay Namka, Senior Advocate with Mr. Simeon
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.
W.P. (C) No. 16 of 2021
NORDEN DORJEE SHANGDERPA
.... PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CPWD
.... RESPONDENT
Date: 03.11.2022
CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.
For Petitioner : Mr. Jorgay Namka, Senior Advocate with Mr. Simeon Subba and Ms. Adeshna Subba, Advocates.
For Respondent : Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Ms. Natasha Pradhan, Advocate.
.......
The present writ petition has assailed the letter dated 02.11.2020 by which the petitioner was informed that his bid had been disqualified for the tender invited by the respondent. According to the respondent the bid of the lowest tenderer was accepted and work awarded to him on 07.11.2020. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. While it is the case of the petitioner that his tender was illegally rejected as he had the necessary qualification it is the case of the respondent that they were not satisfied that the petitioner had the necessary qualification and therefore, his bid was rightfully rejected. Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that since the tender has already been awarded, at this stage, all that he desires is that he ought not to be blacklisted as a contractor for any future works. In reply to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, the respondent has categorically stated that the action of the respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s bid does not debar him from participating in any contract. The stand of the respondent in the affidavit dated 09.09.2022 is absolutely clear. The petitioner inspite of his bid having been rejected earlier is not debarred from participating in any future tenders that may be floated by the respondent. In that view of the matter nothing survives in the writ petition and it is disposed of on the clear undertaking by the respondent in the manner recorded above.
Judge