Jammu and Kashmir High Court
LPAOW/123/2017 of M/S JOINT VENTURE M/S ACE INFRA-TECH,PVT.LTD. Vs STATE TH.P.H.E.DEPTT.AND ORS. on 30 December 2017
123/2017 Page 1 of 2 Serial No. 1 Supplementary List-5 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU LPAOW No. 123/2017 Date of order: 30.12.2017 M/S Joint Venture M/S Ace Infra-Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs State of J&K and ors Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, Chief Justice Hon’ble
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.
Conclusion
Serial No. 1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIRAT JAMMU
LPAOW No. 123/2017
Date of order: 30.12.2017
M/S Joint Venture M/S Ace Infra-Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs State of J&K and ors
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr Rakesh Sharma, Advocate. Mr Ashwani Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr Raman Sharma, Dy AG. i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No Badar Durrez Ahmed, CJ (Oral)
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21.12.2017, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OWP No. 1034/2017. The appellant was the petitioner before the writ court and sought quashing of the notice dated 17.06.2017 which has been issued by the respondent No. 3 by which the e-NIT No. 10 of 2015 dated 21.11.2015 had been cancelled. The writ petitioner/appellant also sought the quashing of the decision taken by the Departmental Purchase Committee dated 15.06.2017 and the communication dated 15.06.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2 on the purported ground that the same were illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
2. The petitioner alongwith four bidders responding to the said e-NIT No. 10 of 2015 dated 21.11.2015 which had been issued for the purposes of inviting bids for dredging equipments.
3. Four out of the five bidders were rejected at the technical stage as their bids were not found fit on technical evaluation. That left only the writ petitioner/appellant in the fray. The financial bid of the petitioner was opened. However, the Departmental Purchase Committee in its meeting held on 15.06.2017 came to the conclusion that the rate, which was quoted by the writ petitioner/appellant herein, was on the higher side and accordingly a decision was taken unanimously to cancel the e-NIT No. 10 of 2015 and to issue a fresh tender.
4. Aggrieved by this, the said writ petition was filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition, essentially, on two grounds. The first ground being that the decision to rescind the e-NIT No. 10 of 2015 had been taken for valid and cogent reasons by the respondents and not in any arbitrary or unfair manner.
5. The second ground, which we feel completely demolishes the case of the appellant, was that while the writ petition was pending before the court, the writ petitioner/appellant sent a communication dated 26.10.2017 to the respondents informing them that the validity of the bid submitted by it had expired and requested for the release of the EMD. Pursuant to the request made by the appellant, the respondents released the EMD on 28.10.2017. As a result, it is evident that at least on and from that date there remained no offer on the part of the appellant. Therefore, there was no ground at all available to the writ petitioner/appellant for seeking the direction which it had sought in the writ petition when the writ petitioner/appellant had itself withdrawn from the fray.
6. In these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is obvious that whenever the subject matter of the tender is put up for re-tender, it would be open to the appellant to also participate in the same.
7. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Jammu 30.12.2017 Pawan Angotra
(Sanjeev Kumar) (Badar Durrez Ahmed) Judge Chief Justice