Gagandeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana And ORS

C.W.P. No. 20021 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 20021 of 2024 Date of decision: 20.08.2024 Gagandeep Kumar .... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present:

Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate with Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

ARUN PALLI, J (Oral) The petitioner (Gagandeep Kumar) has prayed for the following substantive relief:

"Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for staying the proceedings of impugned E-bid 2024_HBC_378904_1 with Tender Title: Sale of Old Sugar Plant Use Machinery of Panipat Mill (P-4), being arbitrary, non-transparent, and impartial, in the interest of justice. AND/OR A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to 4 to issue fresh Advertisement for E-Bidding, in the interest of justice."

Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, is present in Court on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4. At the outset, he submits that although post technical evaluation, even the price bids have since been evaluated and the work has also been assigned to M/s Puneet Industries. Be that as it may, he submits that let the petition be disposed of, at this stage, to enable the competent authority to take cognizance of the concerns/grievances of the DEEPAK KUMAR 2024.08.21 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 20021 of 2024 petitioner, as sought to be raised in the petition. And, pass necessary orders, in accordance with law. Further, he submits that before any such orders are passed, the petitioner, shall also be heard. In this regard, he may appear before the Managing Director, The Panipat Sugar Mills Limited, Panipat (respondent No.3), in his office on 23.08.2024 at 11.00 AM and necessary orders shall be passed within a week thereafter. However, he, as always, fairly submits that till any formal order is passed, the work order to the successful bidder shall not be issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to the course suggested by the learned State counsel and submits that let the petition be disposed of in terms of the statement made by him. In the wake of the position sketched out above, and in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is accordingly disposed of.

This Court is sanguine that the authority shall consider/examine the matter in the right earnest, and pass appropriate orders, assigning reasons in support thereof.

Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the case of either party, for, as indicated earlier, the competent authority shall examine the grievances of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law.

(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 20.08.2024 deepak Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2024.08.21 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P & H High Court, Chandigarh