← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/2411/2019

M/S Moets Catering Services Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Bindra v. Dr. Ambedkar International Center And ANR.

2019-03-11Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru2 pages

$~47 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2411/2019 M/S MOETS CATERING SERVICES THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR. SANDEEP BINDRA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Rohit Priyaranjan, Mr Pratik Kumar, Ms Suhani Joshi and Ms Shweta Sharma, Advocates.

versus DR. AMBEDKAR INTERNATIONAL CENTER AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr Chetan Kumar Shukla, GP and Mr Sarvan Kumar, Advocates for R-1 and R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 11.03.2019 CM No.11237/2019 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 2411/2019 & CM No.11236/2019 2.

The petitioner is engaged in the business of food chain and restaurants as well as running outdoor catering services in Delhi and surrounding areas. The petitioner also claims that it is empanelled for providing such services by various prestigious clubs and organisations. 3.

On 08.10.2018, respondent no.1 floated tender inviting bids for its outdoor catering services. It is the petitioner's case that it had submitted the

bid in response to the said notice, however, it has not received any intimation regarding the outcome of the bidding process. It is stated that that the petitioner was orally informed that it's bid had not been considered. However, it is contended that the same are vague. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that respondent no.1 be directed to communicate the status of the petitioner's bid in writing.

4.

Mr Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the reasons regarding non-considering the petitioner's bid had been intimated to him, nonetheless, the same would be formally intimated to him in writing within a period of one week from today. 5.

In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed. Needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision, it is not precluded from availing the remedies as available in law. 6.

The petition and the pending application are disposed of. 7.

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 11, 2019 MK