Mansa Ram vs State of Punjab and others

S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has challenged the award of a contract in favour of the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The only ground of challenge is that a self-

declaration, the proforma whereof is at Annexure P-3, was not uploaded by the private respondents.

This matter has been adjourned twice to enable Mr. Chopra to show us any provisions in the NIT or in any document incorporated therein that

makes it mandatory for a bidder to upload the self-declaration. At the cost of repetition, the only ground of challenge is that the self-declaration has

not been uploaded. It may well be that a self-declaration form is to be filled and furnished by the bidders to the official respondents. It is, however,

not contended that the private respondents have not done so. We do not even express any opinion as to whether the self-declaration is to be

furnished. We have only proceeded on the basis that it is to be furnished.

Mr. Chopra contended that in other centers bids had been rejected on the ground that the self-declaration had not been uploaded or submitted. We

do not express any view as to the circumstances and the reasons for which the bids were rejected. Nor do we express any view on the correctness

of the decision to reject the bids. Suffice it to say that the basis on which the petition has been filed has not been established to wit the petitioner has

not established that it is mandatory for the self-declaration to be uploaded.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.