Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 930 (UTT)

Summit Aviation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-12-07

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. Appellants are the writ petitioners. 2. This is a case where the appellants have called in question the entire bidding process initiated pursuant to the Request for Proposal dated 18.11.2016 issued by the second respondent to provide Scheduled Air Transport Services in the State of Uttarakhand, as also the corrigendum issued after the pre-bid meeting dated 29.11.2016. A direction is also sought to initiate fresh bidding process. Appellants also sought stay of the proceedings. 3. Learned Single Judge issued notices to respondent nos. 3 and 4; they were also permitted to be served by Dasti; the respondents were granted ten days time to file counter affidavit; and the matter was directed to be listed on 19.12.2016 in the daily cause list. It is further ordered that the finalization of tender shall be subject to the final decision of the writ petition. 4. We heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2. 5. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned senior counsel would contend that providing for fixed-wing aircraft is meant to oust the appellants. He would also submit that certain conditions have been tailor-made to suit the requirements of the fourth respondent and certain conditions, in particular, which related to air safety and also providing for three years experience have been obliterated by way of corrigendum and they will not sub-serve public interest. Equally he would contend that by the corrigendum, there has been a preponing of the bid, which is not explained. 6. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel would raise a preliminary objection that the impugned decision is not a judgment. 7. We would also think that we need not entertain this Appeal in view of the nature of the impugned decision. The learned Single Judge has, though not granted stay, made it clear that the finalization of the tender will be subject to the final decision in the writ petition. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal will stand dismissed, but we leave open all the contentions of the appellants. We emphasize that respondent nos. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal will stand dismissed, but we leave open all the contentions of the appellants. We emphasize that respondent nos. 1 and 2 will file their counter affidavit within the time granted by the learned Single Judge and no request for adjournment will be entertained. We also request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition at the earliest.