Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Inder Pal Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 February, 2021
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
Sr. No. 235
After notice list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
OWP No. 775/2012
IA No. 1079/2012
IA No. 1503/2012
Inder Pal Singh .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- None
V/s
Union of India and ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI
Coram : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
1. The petitioner is seeking quashment of communication dated 11.05.2012 whereby petitioner was asked to return the tender documents.
2. The petitioner obtained the tender documents in respect of contract for repair (i) CA NO. GE.JM-101/11-12: certain repair to roof projection, facias, chajjas 85 fins of various buildings in AGE B/R-1 and maintain roof top of JCOS mess of WEU under GE Satwari, (ii) CA NO. GEJM-142/11- 12; repair and maintenance of internal wiring of OTM and MDACCN of various units, MES installation of Raipur Satwari area under GE Satwari and (iii) CA NO. GEJM-148/11-12: SPL repair to BLDG NO P-58 (Toilet Block) and certain sanctioned works at Transit Camp under GE Satwari.
3. The petitioner's contention is that he had still to submit the completed tender in respect of the Contract Agreements vide Letter No. 8823 / 148 /28/E8 dated 11.05.2012, Letter No. 8823/101/31/E8 dated 11- 05-2012 and Letter No. 142/45/E8 whereby the petitioner was asked to return the tender documents in respect of the Contract Agreements mentioned in the letters as the firm of the petitioner had been banned for 2 OWP No. 775/2012 issue of tender vide Headquarter Chief Engineer, Udhampur Zone, Udhampur.
4. Notice was issued in this petition on 25.05.2012. The matter remain pending despite notice. Further, there is no interim order issued in this matter.
5. The short and only question for consideration is what relief can be granted to the petitioner at the stage because the petitioner filed the petition in 2012 and it has been pending for nearly nine years.
6. During the period, the petitioner never complained against denial of documents. He never complained that the work was allotted to someone else without his participation or questioned the allotment, so the petition has become infructuous by now as the date of tendering has expired since long.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
(Sindhu Sharma) Judge JAMMU 17.02.2021 Neha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. NEHA KUMARI 2021.02.20 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document