Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Pankaj Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Others on 30 December, 2020

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Jyotsna Rewal Dua

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                                            CWP No. 5594 of 2020
                                           Decided on: 30th December, 2020




                                                                            .
    ________________________________________________________





    Pankaj Sharma                             ....Petitioner

                                      Versus





    State of H.P. and others                  ...Respondents
    ________________________________________________________
    Coram





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
    The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

    1 Whether

              approved for reporting? No.
    ________________________________________________________

    For the petitioner:     Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate.
    For the respondent:                   Mr.   Ashok    Sharma,     Advocate
                                          General, with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr.


                                          Vikas Rathor Additional Advocates
                                          General, Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr.
                                          Bhupinder Thakur and Mr. Yudhvir
                                          Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocates




                                          General.





                                          Through Video Conferencing

    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:

"(i) That the office order dated 06.11.2020 passed by respondent No.4 contained in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2020 20:16:35 :::HCHP -2-

Annexure P-2 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ in the nature of .

certiorari.

(ii) That the tender process initiated by the respondents vide Annexure P-1 for the works " Sr. No. (iv) construction of link road from 16 miles to Sedan Km from 0/00 to 3/135 and Sr. No. (V) construction of Work road from Dawaroo to Chanawag Km from 00 to 1/700 (formation and cutting 5/7 meters)" may kindly be directed to be processed further and complete the tender bid process for the said work in a time bound manner. In the alternative, the respondents may kindly be directed by way of writ of mandamus to invite fresh tenders for the said work.

(iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to invite tenders for the said work contract in accordance with the notification as well as instructions as contained in Annexure P-4 by issuing a writ mandamus."

2. It appears that tenders for construction of work in question had been called twice because of objections raised by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, s/o Sh. Surinder Kumar Sharma and Smt. Nisha Sharma, ::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2020 20:16:35 :::HCHP -3- wife of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma.

3. The beneficiary villagers appear to have been .

pressing hard for construction of the road, which then persuaded the respondents to carry out construction of the road through departmental labour/machinery by change of alignment and admittedly the work is now about to be completed.

4. rConsequently, the instant petition has lost its efficacy with time and is disposed of as such, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge December 30, 2020 (Gaurav) ::: Downloaded on - 31/12/2020 20:16:35 :::HCHP