AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
The limited plea of the petitioner, which is a co-operative society, is that the 2nd respondent be directed to consider Exts.P4, P4(a), P4(b) and P4(c) explanations offered by them and to then process the bid submitted by them.
Sri.M.Sasindran – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the refusal of the 2nd respondent to even consider the explanations of his client is illegal and unlawful and will stifle competition because, they are one of the foremost agencies involved in similar works in question in this case.
Sri.S.Manu – learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, in response, submitted that, if the petitioner only requires their explanations to be considered by the 2nd respondent – if not already done – there is no legal impediment in doing so; but prayed that they be directed to do so at the earliest. He added that if the petitioner appears before the 2nd respondent tomorrow (22.12.2023) at 11 a.m., their explanations will be considered and appropriate proceedings issued. He added that he is making this submission because, otherwise, the work will get delayed.
It is obvious from the afore stand of the learned DSGI that, nothing more remains in this writ petition, because, the request of the petitioner, to have their explanations considered by the 2nd respondent, is virtually now being conceded to.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the petitioner to mark appearance at 11 a.m., on 22.12.2023, before the 2nd respondent; on which day, the said Authority will hear them and consider their explanations, namely Exts.P4, P4(a), P4(b), and P4(c); thus culminating in appropriate communication/proceedings, as expeditiously as is possible.
Needless to say, further action with respect to the tender proceedings will be completed only after the order resultant to the afore directions is communicated to the petitioner.