news details |
|
|
| Injunction or interference in tender process is against public interest: DB | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 16: A division bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi while dismissing the appeal of one Rakesh Kumar challenging decision dated 6th December 2021, taken by respondents 1 to 3 whereby the petitioner has been technically disqualified in reference to Request for Proposal (RFP)-Tender E-Bid No.2021-AAI-82001-1 issued on 13-7-2021 for concession to design, fit-out, finance, develop, market, operate, maintain and manage the food and beverage outlets at Civil Airport, Jammu.
The court observed that it does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the state and this limitation should be kept in view. The courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions.
The DB observed that the submission of counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that previous to the petitioner, the said restaurant of the petitioner - M/s Airport Restaurant, of which the petitioner is the proprietor, was being run by his mother and before her by his father as a sole proprietorship firm. Therefore, the experience or the turnover of the said restaurant during the period it was being run by his mother and father is also supposed to be taken into consideration.
The DB said that in the instant case, the petitioner is bidder and, therefore, his business experience/turnover has to be considered for the purposes of his eligibility rather than the business which was carried by his mother or father. The DB upheld the judgment of single judge and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
