Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Geo Miller And Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs U.P. Jal Nigam on 19 May, 2022
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
1
ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.11 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13371/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-08-2021
in MB No. 15664/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
M/S GEO MILLER AND CO. PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
U.P. JAL NIGAM & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.107664/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.107663/2021-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.107662/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST
OF DATES)
Date : 19-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.D. Singh, Adv.
Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR
Mr. Ramkripal Singh, Adv.
Ms. Rahul Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jitender Singh, Adv.
Ms. Meenu Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shweeta Sinha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG
Ms. Neela Kedar Gokhale, Adv.
Mr. Robin V.S., Adv.
Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv.
Ms. Praveena Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv.
Md. Akhil, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Ms. Ekta Kalra Sikri, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Ms. Priyanka Kalra Dar, Adv.
Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, AOR
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.05.21
13:17:33 IST
Reason:
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
Sajal Singhai, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
2
O R D E R
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. We have also gone through the prayers in the Writ Petition before the High Court.
The High Court, in the impugned judgment and order, has specifically observed that the petitioner was found to be technically disqualified and the same has not been challenged. What was challenged by the petitioner was the subsequent decision of setting aside the corrigendum by which the earlier decision was taken to cancel the entire bid. After due application of mind, the appropriate authority/Board has taken a conscious decision to go on with the bid and thereafter the contract has been awarded in favour Respondent No.4.
We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the same. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, U.P. Jal Nigam and Respondent No.4 have assured the Court that the project in question will be completed within the stipulated time as per the terms of the contract. We direct accordingly. Pending applications stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR