news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses petition seeking direction to respondents not to proceed with e-tender of rail link project | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 10: Justice Rajnesh Oswal of Jammu & Kasshmir and Ladakh High Court in a significant judgment dismissed the petition filed by BGE MFB JV seeking direction of respondents respondent to permit the petitioner to participate and bid in the tender for slope stabilization at Katra. The court directed the respondents not to proceed ahead with e-tender for the project.
The court observed that till date submission of e-bid is extended and the petitioner is permitted to participate for submission of the e-bid and not to finalize the tendering process till such time the date for submission of e-bid be extended; (d) Direction against respondents directing them not to open the financial bid of the tender till such time the petitioner makes its bid and the technical bid of the petitioner is opened.
Justice Oswal while dismissing the petition observed that Supreme Court in a judgment holds that while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the state and/or its agencies/instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens.
Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions and/or while granting stay in such matters.
Justice while dismissing the petition further observed that the petitioner on 22-2-2022 wrote to the respondent Nos. 2 to 3 for extending the date for submission of bids by at least three weeks i.e. up to 25-3-2022 so as to enable the petitioner to participate in the tender and in the said e-mail, it has been mentioned by the petitioner that the petitioner needs some more time (pandemic situation due to Omicron) for joint venture formalities and compliance. The petitioner has not denied the said communication which further gives credence to the contention of the respondent Nos.2 to 3 that the petitioner right from the very beginning wanted the extension of time for participation in tendering process.
The judge observed that this court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness and mala fide on the part of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in continuing with the tendering process to the exclusion of the petitioner, by not extending the period for making bid. The petitioner cannot be allowed to participate in tendering process by extending the time for making bids because any delay in the completion of project would not be in the public interest particularly in view of the fact that the project was required to be completed in five months. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
