Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ex. Nk. Gopal Chand Thakur vs Union Of India And Others on 4 September, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CWP No.1054 of 2018 Date of decision : 04.09.2018 Ex. Nk. Gopal Chand Thakur .... Petitioner.
Versus Union of India and others .... Respondents. Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate . For the Respondents : Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate.
Sanja y Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Petitioner, by the medium of this petition, has mainly prayed for the following relief:-
(i) "That publication of tenders vide Annexure P-4 is against the settled principal of law as no procedure has been followed and no details has been provided by the respondents in the tender as such the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued declaring the publication of said tenders as illegal and be declared null and void along with its all ancillary actions.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 23:01:59 :::HCHP...2...
(ii) That acceptance of tender of private respondent No.4 is against the rules so .
framed by the respondent annexed herewith as Annexure P-8, and as such the acceptance of tender and notice regarding vacation of shop issued by the respondents to the petitioner be declared as null and void.
(iii)That the rejection of the contract of the petitioner and allotting the contract in favour of private respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed with all consequential benefits.
(iv)That the direction may be given to the respondents to withdraw the tender as given to the private respondent No.4 ."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation, venting out his grievance, which he shall be making within a period of one week from today. Also, petitioner does not press the issue raised in the present petition, for the reliefs as orally prayed for, is ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 23:01:59 :::HCHP ...3...
that of a mere direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation .
which he shall be making within a period of one week from today.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.
4. No other point is urged.
5. Leaving all questions of law open, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel more so, for the reason that the petition, as prayed for is not pressed, we dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously and preferably within a period of two weeks from the receipt thereof, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
6. Till then, interim order dated 14.5.2018, shall remain in operation. It stands clarified that if representation is not made within the aforesaid ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 23:01:59 :::HCHP ...4...
period, interim order of protection shall automatically stand vacated.
.
7. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.
8.
r to It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
Copy Dasti.
(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel), September 4, 2018 (KS) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 23:01:59 :::HCHP