← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/22999/2017disposed of

M/S Indane Cables v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd And ANR

2017-10-09Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mr. Justice Arun Monga2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22999 of 2017 Decided on : 09.10.2017 M/s Indane Cables . . . Petitioner

Versus

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL PRESENT: Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the orders dated 29.05.2017 and 19.07.2017 (appended as Annexures P-5 & P-8, respectively), issued by respondent No.2, whereby, the technical bid was held to be non-responsive in view of clause No.(vii) of Pre-qualification requirements of the NIT. 2.

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present writ petition may be disposed of at this stage by permitting the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as sought to be raised in the present writ petition before respondent No.1. A further prayer has been made that a direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the same within a time bound manner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law.

3.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the averments made in the writ petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the present writ petition by Jawala Ram 2017.10.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 22999 of 2017 - 2 - permitting the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before respondent No.1 within a week from today. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be decided by respondent No.1 within a period of next two weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE October 09, 2017 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.10.13 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh