AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the
tender notification dated 13.04.2016 impugned at
Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner relying on the
document at Annexure-B seeks to contend that the work
which had been assigned to the petitioner was for the
period of three years between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017.
In that light, the petitioner contends that the issue of the
tender notification even prior to the said period coming
to an end would not be justified.
The respondents have filed their objection
statement and the learned counsel for the respondents
would however dispute the said position and contend
that the said period is not relevant for the said purpose
inasmuch as the period is only for the purpose of
claiming subsidy.
Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact
that this Court while directing notice to the respondents
had permitted the petitioner to participate in the tender
process without prejudice to the contentions, only if the
petitioner had participated in the said process, any
consideration relating to the work order subsequent to
31.12.2017 would have arisen.
The learned counsel for the respondents
would submit that the petitioner has not participated in
the tender process and the petitioner in any event does
not dispute the said position.
Therefore, in that circumstance, irrespective
of the nature of the right as claimed by the petitioner, in
any event, since the petitioner contends right only up to
31.12.2017, without adverting to the other aspects of the
matter, the interest of both the parties could be
protected, if an appropriate order is made herein. In that
view, the respondents are permitted to proceed further
with the tender process. However, the work order shall
be issued in favour of such successful bidder only with
effect subsequent to 31.12.2017 and until then, if the
petitioner is carrying on the work, the same shall not be
disturbed.
The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of
the above direction.