AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent-company. The petitioner-appellant was denied the contract in question, for which the appellant was found to be L-1 tenderer after opening of the financial bid, but subsequent to that, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the offer of the private respondent no. 3, who could not qualify in the technical bid, was entertained.
Learned counsel for the respondent-company submitted that not only the tender in question has been cancelled but fresh tender inviting offers has also been issued.
Be that as it may, the detailed facts are not necessary, in view of the fact that the tender in question has been cancelled by the respondent-company even after work-order has been given to the respondent no. 3, as the respondent no. 3 defaulted in submitting security/guarantee.
In view of the above reason, no relief can be granted to the petitioner-appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be permitted to avail other remedy for seeking damages for wrongful cancellation of the tender and for the illegal acts of the respondent-company causing loss and harassment to the appellant. If law permits, the appellant is free to avail the remedy, but no relief, in pursuance of the tender, which has already been cancelled, can be granted to the petitioner-appellant, because this L.P.A. has become infructuous. Hence, this L.P.A., having been infructuous, is dismissed.