AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
The case is listed under the caption “Fresh Cases as Defective”. The defect, as pointed out by the Registry, being negligible, is hereby ignored.
The petitioner was one of the bidders to a tender process initiated by the respondent-department for outsourcing manpower. The petitioner along with private respondent No. 3 were declared L1 as is evident from the screen shot of the GeM Portal filed at page 56 of the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 was not having experience of 05 similar works with the Government department which was an essential eligibility condition. It is also his case that barely two months back a bid submitted by respondent No. 3 in respect of some other contract was declared non-responsive on the said ground. However, in the present case, the department had declared respondent No. 3 as technically qualified. The petitioner is stated to have filed objections against the declaration of the bid of respondent No. 3 as technically qualified and since the objection has not been decided, the present writ petition has been filed, questioning the award of contract in favour of the private respondent.
Learned State counsel states that the representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2026 filed in this regard shall be decided by the department.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the department to decide the representation dated 21.08.2026 after affording opportunity of hearing to private respondent No. 3 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the instant order.
Pending applications(s), if any, also stand disposed of.