M/S Gs Express Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35860 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tiwari and Sri Mohd. Atif, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents; Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhay Pratap Singh and Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3; Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6 and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vedant Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :- "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the declaration of Respondent No. 7 as the L-1 bidder dated 25.08.2026 (Annexure No. 2) in Tender No. YEA/GM(P)/2026/495 dated 24.04.2026 and consequential/preceding declaration of Respondent No. 7 as technically qualified dated 19.08.2026 (Annexure No. 2), together with all consequential decisions, approvals, Letters of Intent, work orders or agreements, if any, issued or executed in favour of Respondent No. 7 pursuant thereto; ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to cancel the technical qualification and L-1 declaration of Respondent No. 7 in Tender COMMISS YEA/GM(P)/2026/495 dated 24.04.2026, and thereupon (a) undertake a fresh and lawful re-evaluation of the financial bids confined to bidders satisfying the mandatory eligibility conditions of the NIT and, the petitioner having secured the L-2 position in the financial bid opening, consider its bid for award of the contract/LOI in accordance with law; or, in the alternative, (b) if such re- evaluation is found not to be feasible, cancel the impugned tender process in its entirety and initiate a fresh tender process strictly in accordance with law, with uniform application of the prescribed eligibility conditions to all bidders; iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 not to treat or consider the experience acquired by Respondent No. 7 as a subcontractor in the Pithoragarh Medical College and Ayodhya/Faizabad Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd Atif Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Bhushan Singhal, C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra, Vedant Agarwal M/S GS Express Limited .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
Medical College projects as qualifying experience under the NIT; iv. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to recalculate the bid capacity of Respondent No. 7 strictly in accordance with the NIT by excluding GST and receipts from the sale of scrap from the eligible construction turnover and by including and deducting the value of all its existing, recently secured and ongoing contractual commitments; V. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to examine the original Letters of Award, contracts and subcontract agreements and issue an appropriate clarification/correction recording the true contractual status of Respondent No. 7 as a subcontractor, and not as the principal contractor directly engaged by the respective Government authorities; vi. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, CUMMINS commanding Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to consider and decide the petitioner's representations dated 22.08.2026, 25.08.2026 and 27.08.2026 (Annexure No. 8) by a reasoned and speaking order before taking any further consequential action in the impugned tender proceedings; and vii. issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;"
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 has stated that the anomalies stated in the writ petition has been made the basis of the notice dated 8.9.2026 and that notice has been served upon the respondent no.
It stated that a reply has now also been filed to the notice. The adjudication to this effect would now take place within two weeks. He further states that till such time as the reply is adjudicated upon, no final order would be passed with regard to the grant of tender.
Under such circumstances, no further order is required to be passed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage. It may, however, be noted that if the petitioners put in appearance by filing any application etc. then they shall be granted proper opportunity of hearing. September 16, 2026 GS WRIC No. 35860 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) GAUTAM SONI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.