JUDGMENT 1. According to Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, petitioner nos. 2 & 3 were the successful bidders for 200 MW Mapang Bogudiyar Hydro Power Project and 170 MW Bogudiyar Sirkari Bhoyal Hydro Power Project. He further submits that petitioner nos. 2 & 3 subsequently established a special purpose vehicle, namely, Goriganga Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner no. 1 herein). 2. The Letters of Award in respect of both the projects were issued by Government of Uttarakhand to petitioner no. 1 on 07.05.2005, which are on record as Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 23.09.2020 filed on behalf of the petitioners. 3. The bidding process and Letter of Award in respect of both the projects issued in favour of petitioner no. 1 was challenged by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. by filing WPMS No. 790 of 2010. The said writ petition was partly allowed vide judgment dated 08.11.2010 and Letter of Award, issued by Government of Uttarakhand in respect of one of the projects, namely, Mapang Boghudiyar Hydro Power Project, was quashed and authorities were directed to initiate process for award of the said project afresh. 4. Against the said judgment, two Special Appeals, namely, SPA No. 12 of 2011 and SPA No. 14 of 2011, were filed, one by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. and another by the petitioners. Both the Special Appeals were decided by common judgment dated 27.04.2012. Conjoint reading of para 41 and 42 of the said judgment reveals that the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed, while appeal filed by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. was allowed and State was directed to award Mapang Bogudiyar Power Project to M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. on such financial consideration, at which, the same was awarded to the petitioners. 5. Since petitioner has now staked his claim based on the judgment dated 27.04.2012 passed by Division Bench of this Court, therefore, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:- “38. Normally, courts will not interfere with in a case of this nature when public money has been spent to implement a contract and, particularly when, upon spending such money, the work has progressed to a great extent, but not otherwise. In the instant case, no public money has been spent to implement the contract. Normally, courts will not interfere with in a case of this nature when public money has been spent to implement a contract and, particularly when, upon spending such money, the work has progressed to a great extent, but not otherwise. In the instant case, no public money has been spent to implement the contract. There is no progress at all in respect of one of the projects. In respect of the other, the work has progressed, but result thereof was shown beyond the time stipulated in the contract and without obtaining extension. If, in such circumstances, the court is thought to be bereft of power to interfere, then, the same would tantamount to deny the court of its obligation to restore legal right of a litigant before it. 40. Having had, thus, held that awarding of Mapang Bogudiyar and Bogudiyar Sirkari Bhyol projects in favour of GVK, as has been done inthe instant case, was utterly mala fide, we have no other option but to hold that financial bids given by GVK in respect of the said projects are to be ignored for the same have no value at all in the eyes of law. As a result, it was obligatory on the part of the State to award Mapang Bogudiyar project to Reliance, it being the highest bidder for the said project. There was no just reason for the learned Single Judge, while rendering the judgment and order under appeals, not to issue a mandamus upon the State to award the said project to Reliance. While, however, doing so, it was obligatory in public interest to ensure that Reliance matched the offer given by GVK in respect of the said project. 41. In the circumstances, there is no scope of interference with the judgment and order under appeal in the appeal filed by GVK, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 42. Therefore, while allowing the appeal of Reliance, we direct the State to award Mapang Bogudiyar project to Reliance on such financial consideration at which the same was awarded to GVK. In relation to Bogudiyar Sirkari Bhyol project, we leave the matter with the State. 42. Therefore, while allowing the appeal of Reliance, we direct the State to award Mapang Bogudiyar project to Reliance on such financial consideration at which the same was awarded to GVK. In relation to Bogudiyar Sirkari Bhyol project, we leave the matter with the State. It may cancel the contract in respect of the said project with GVK and take recourse to fresh exercise for awarding the said project and, thereby, establish that, in the matter of dealing with the people, it acts rationally, reasonably and impartially; but, if not, to record reasons in support thereof, which can only be in public interest, and to communicate the same to Reliance, GVK and L&T. 43. We also direct the State to refund whatever it has received from GVK after receiving the financial consideration from Reliance in respect of Mapang Bogudiyar project. It goes without saying that, in the event, the State decides to cancel award of Bogudiyar Sirkari Bhyol project in favour of GVK, State will refund moneys that it has received from GVK on account of the said project. 44. The State will offer Mapang Bogudiyar project to Reliance, on the condition as above, within a period of 30 days from today and discharge all other obligations, in terms of the directions as above, within 60 days from today. 45. In view of the concession given by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Reliance in course of submissions, we direct Reliance to pay a sum of Rs.16.83 crores (Rs. 47 crores minus Rs. 13.34 crores divided by 2) to GVK within 30 days from the date of receipt by Reliance of a letter of request from GVK asking for the said payment, but only after the State has awarded Mapang Bogudiyar project to Reliance." 6. In this writ petition, petitioners have sought following reliefs:- (i) To declare the acts of the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the judicial command of this Hon'ble Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent No. 1 to forthwith refund the various costs and expenditure incurred by Goriganga in executing the Projects. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent No. 1 to forthwith refund the various costs and expenditure incurred by Goriganga in executing the Projects. (ii) To issue writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay interest on the amounts claimed from the date they are payable till the date of actual payment. (iv) To direct the Respondents to make good all the losses and damages incurred by the Petitioner due to the enormous delay cause by the Respondents in making the payments as directed by the Courts including but not limited to any third party payments, taxes, duties and other statutory payments. 7. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners made a statement that State Government has refunded a sum of 11,27,50,000/- to the petitioner towards (i) threshold premium and (ii) premium above threshold, deposited by him in lieu of allotment of the aforesaid two Hydro Projects. He further submits that the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeals was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No. 16303 of 2012 & SLP (Civil) No. 26877 of 2012 and the said SLPs were disposed of on 10.11.2017 in view of the statement that State of Uttarakhand has scrapped both the projects and it is now planning to invite fresh tenders for both the projects. 8. The order dated 10.11.2017 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLPs is reproduced below:- “We have been informed that recently the State of Uttarakhand has scrapped both projects and is planning to re-tender for both. In para 45 of the impugned judgment, Reliance was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 16.83 Crores to the appellant GVK, which we are informed has not been paid till date. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the GVK has pointed out to us that in para 43 of the impugned judgment in case the State decides to cancel award of Bogudiyar Sirkari Bhyol project in favour of GVK, the State will refund monies that it has receive from GVK on account of the said project. We are not touching the impugned Division Bench judgment as the Special Leave Petitions have become infructuous. We are not touching the impugned Division Bench judgment as the Special Leave Petitions have become infructuous. In view of subsequent events, all that can be said is that the appellant must work out its remedy with the State so far as both projects are concerned. With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Division Bench judgment has become final after dismissal of SLPs filed against it. He further submits that in view of the direction contained in para 43 and 45 of the Division Bench judgment, State Government is liable to reimburse to the petitioners all the cost/expenditure incurred by them for execution of the projects. 10. In para no. 38 of the Division Bench Judgment, there is a finding regarding the progress in respect of both the projects. The Division Bench has held that; “in the instant case, no public money has been spent to implement the contract. There is no progress at all in respect of one of the projects. In respect of the other, the work has progressed, but result thereof was shown beyond the time stipulated in the contract and without obtaining extension." Expenditure, if any, would be incurred by a contractor till award of the project is not set aside by a constitutional Court. It is nobody's case that petitioners have incurred any expenditure after judgment of this Court. 11. Even otherwise also, there is no averment in the writ petition regarding expenditure, if any, made by petitioners towards execution of the projects. There is no material on record to show that petitioners had in fact made any expenditure towards implementation of the projects. In the absence of any pleading regarding actual expenditure incurred by the petitioners, the claim made by the petitioners for reimbursement of the amount allegedly spent by them, cannot be sustained. 12. Perusal of para 37 of the aforesaid judgment reveals that petitioners were not qualified for the aforesaid projects, but despite their disqualification, they applied and in para 40 of the judgment it has been held that award of the two Hydro Projects in favour of the petitioners was utterly mala fide. 13. 12. Perusal of para 37 of the aforesaid judgment reveals that petitioners were not qualified for the aforesaid projects, but despite their disqualification, they applied and in para 40 of the judgment it has been held that award of the two Hydro Projects in favour of the petitioners was utterly mala fide. 13. In para 43 of the judgment dated 27.04.2012, State was directed to refund the amount received from petitioners in respect of Mapang Bogudiyar Hydro Project, but such refund was to be made only after receiving the financial consideration from M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.It was further provided in para 43 that if the State decides to cancel award of other project in favour of the petitioner, then State shall refund the amount received from petitioner on account of the said project. 14. It is an admitted position that entire amount received by the State Government towards both the projects, amounting to 11,27,50,000/- has been refunded to the petitioner. There is no direction to the State to reimburse the amount of expenditure incurred by the petitioners towards execution of the projects, in such view of the matter also, State is under no duty to reimburse any amount to the petitioners. 15. Para 45 of the judgment rendered in Special Appeals also does not support the case of the petitioner. The direction issued in para 45 was in view of concession made on behalf of M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. and the said direction was to become operative only when contract for executing Mapang Bogudiyar Project is awarded to M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Even otherwise also, the direction was not to State Government but to M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 16. It is not disputed by the petitioner that both the Hydro Projects have been scrapped off and State Government is proposing to invite fresh tenders therefor. The decision to scrap the Hydro Project was taken subsequent to judgment rendered in Special Appeals. 17. In view of the situation prevailing at the relevant point of time, Division Bench directed M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. to compensate the petitioner by paying a specific amount. Now the situation is entirely different, as M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. is no more involved in development, implementation and operation of Mapang Bogudiyar Hydro Power Project. 18. 17. In view of the situation prevailing at the relevant point of time, Division Bench directed M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. to compensate the petitioner by paying a specific amount. Now the situation is entirely different, as M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. is no more involved in development, implementation and operation of Mapang Bogudiyar Hydro Power Project. 18. Even otherwise, the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted in a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether petitioner has incurred expenditure on the site and extent of such expenditure cannot be determined in a writ petition. For arriving at a finding on these aspects, evidence would be required to be adduced and considered, which would not be appropriate in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. In such view of the matter, writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of grievance, if any. 20. No order as to costs.