Charan Choudhary vs Union of India & ors.

S.No.,Name of the Party,Amount (in Rs)

1.,Pooja Gupta,"150,000/- One Lac Fifty thousand only)

2.,Charan Choudhary,"150,000/- One Lac Fifty thousand only)

3.,Suram Singh,"150,000/- One Lac Fifty thousand only)

Having considered the rival contentions, it is apparent that insofar as the NIT dated 28.12.2011 no doubt the petitioner was lowest bidder and",,

one among the three short listed due to the pendency of the writ petition interim order was not finalized. Subsequently, the tender was cancelled in",,

proceeding 29.01.2015 after disposal of the writ petition fact remains that earnest money has been returned to all the three parties. Further,,

conduct of the petitioner to participate in the subsequent NIT dated 30.01.2015 makes it clear that he had accepted the stand of Department to,,

cancel the earlier NIT and, therefore, he has participated in fresh one. Even otherwise if the party has not reserved its right at that time and has",,

participated in the fresh NIT, then he cannot turn around and say that earlier one was bad as it was not cancelled. Facts as has been stated above",,

clearly establish that there was no error on the part of the respondents in proceeding to go with the fresh NIT in the year 2015. There is no serious,,

error in the conduct of respondents calling for interference by this Court.,,

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised one other plea that he has made representation and the authorities should be directed to consider the,,

representation in line with the earlier NIT and consider the present tender. This plea has to be rejected at the threshold in view of the decision,,

rendered by the Supreme Court in case titled Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) Rep. by its Chairman &,,

Managing Director and Ar. Etc. v. CSEPDI-Trishe Consortium, reported in AIR 2016 SCC 4879 paragraph No. 37 of which reads as follows:",,

Before parting with the case we are constrained to add something. We do so with immense pain. The respondent, before",,

finalization of the financial bid submitted series of representations and seeing the silence of the owner it knocked at the doors of the,,

writ court which directed for consideration of the representations. We are disposed to think that the High Court at that stage should,,

have exercised caution. If the courts would exercise power of judicial review in such a manner it is most likely to cause confusion and,,

also bring jeopardy in public interest. An aggrieved party can approach the Court at the appropriate stage, not when the bids are",,

being considered. We do not intend to specify. It is appreciable the owner in certain kind of tenders call the bidders for negotiations,,

to show fairness transparently. But the present case is not a one of such nature. Once the price bid was opened, a bidder could not",,

have submitted representations on his own and seek a mandamus from the Court to take certain aspects into consideration. We have,,

stressed this aspect only to highlight the role of the Court keeping in mind the established principle of restraint.""",,

Finding no merit in the same, the writ petition is dismissed.",,