Veena Kumari vs. The State Of Hp And Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable. Firstly, the petitioners had been granted an opportunity to participate in the tender process, including an extension of the deadline, but failed to do so. Their failure to participate rendered their challenge to the NIT infructuous. Secondly, the Court found that the argument regarding the determination of tenancy rights was not the subject matter of the writ petitions, which solely impugned the NIT. The Court stated that such a relief could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction as it involved disputed questions of fact, best decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, not on affidavits. The Court also noted that other bidders had participated and would be adversely affected if the proceedings were prolonged. The Court concluded that no further orders could be passed in favour of the petitioners, and the respondent institution would suffer irreparable loss. Consequently, all writ petitions and pending applications were dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, who were occupying shops/counters, filed writ petitions challenging a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated August 22, 2025. The High Court, on September 15, 2025, granted interim relief, extending the tender participation deadline by one week, subject to the final decision of the writ petitions, noting the petitioners were paying significantly lower rents than the reserve prices. The State extended the participation date to September 22, 2025. However, the petitioners did not submit their tender forms, citing reasons including not possessing a GST number, though they expressed willingness to enhance their existing payments. Subsequently, the State informed the Court that technical bids were opened on September 22, 2025, and financial bids on October 14, 2025, with the tender liable for allotment to successful bidders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in the absence of the petitioners participating in the tender process after being granted an opportunity and extension by the Court. 2. Whether the issue of determining tenancy rights is a matter that can be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, especially when the primary challenge is to the NIT. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that they could not participate in the tender process due to not possessing a GST number, but were willing to enhance their payments. They also argued that the shops could not be put to auction without determining their tenancy rights. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the petitioners had resiled from their undertaking by not applying for the tender, rendering the lis infructuous. They also submitted that other bidders had applied and were adversely affected by the delay. The State further highlighted that the respondent institution (IGMC, Shimla) would suffer irreparable loss if the proceedings were kept alive.