Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 764 (HP)

Prem Chand Dogra v. State of HP

2014-06-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, V.K.SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners stated at the Bar that he has filed the rejoinder in the Registry. The Registry to trace and place the same on record. He further stated that in terms of the communication made by the Controller of Stores, Himachal Pradesh dated 30th May, 2014, made to the petitioners, the matter is under active consideration and one time relaxation is granted for awarding Parallel Rate of Contract. His statement is taken on record and the communication dated 30th May, 2014, filed across the Board is taken on record and made part of the file. 2. The petitioners have preferred this petition for quashing the tender in respect of Item Code No. 44, (Steel Almirah and Cabinets) and to set aside the letter of acceptance issued by respondent No. 3 to respondents No. 5 to 32, for execution of agreement of rates and rate of contract of Item Code No. 44 of the aforesaid articles, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 3. The respondents-State have filed the reply. It is stated in para 3 of the reply that the matter is under consideration and the government has conveyed the approval for the same on 4.3.2014. It is apt to reproduce para 3 of the reply herein. “The government had conveyed the approval for same on 4.3.2014 and accordingly, the acceptance letters were issued on 21.3.2014 to L-1 firms alongwith other eligible firms as per the provisions of new instructions. It is pertinent to mention here that other participating firms have approached the replying respondent to give them one time relaxation as the new instructions were issued on 24.10.2013 whereas tender for the item was opened on 22.3.2013. The replying respondent after going through the contents of their representation and has taken up the matter with Government on 13.5.2014 for giving one time relaxation to the remaining left out participating firms.” 4. In view of the averments contained in para 3 of the reply supra read with the communication dated 30th May, 2014, the writ petition is disposed of having become infructuous. Interim order dated 11.4.2014 stands vacated. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.