Naveen Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

JUDGMENT:

1)

The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief : "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Clause / Condition No. 9 of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.06.2026 and that Condition No. 9 may be read down as, in the case of a partnership firm also, the solvency certificate of the partnership firm itself

is required to be uploaded so as to establish the financial solvency of the entity participating in the bidding process. (In Ref: Annxe: 1; Pg. 13 to 21)."

2)

Condition No. 9 of the E-tender bidding document is as follows :

"#0 3]00]00]000@& (#0 rhu djksM ek=) dk gSfl;r izek.k&i= tks fd ftykf/kdkjh@l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk iznRRk fd;k x;k gks dks vkuykbu viyksM djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA dEiuh dh fLFkfr esa dEiuh dk gh gSfl;r izek.k&i= EkkU; gksxkA

(,dy LOkkfeRo ds #i esa Lokeh dk gSfl;r izek.k&i= ekU; gksxkA Lkk>snkjh QeZ dh fLFkfr esa QeZ ds lEkLr Lkk>snkjks dk gSfl;r izek.k&i= izLrqr fd;k tkuk vfuok; gS rFkk mDr Lkk>snkjh QeZ ds lHkh Lkk>snkjksa (partners) }kjk bl vk"; dk l;qDr#i ls "kiFki= Hkh viyksM djuk vfuok;Z gksxk dh fufonk vof/k ds nkSjku mDr Lkk>snkjh QeZ ds lHkh Lkk>snkj fufonk "krksZs ds fdlh Hkh izdkj ds mYya?ku ;k pwd dh fLFkfr esa l;qaDr vkSj O;fDrxr #i ls mRrjnk;h@fTkEesnkj gksxsa)A" 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly concedes that he cannot compel the respondents to prescribe any condition regarding eligibility as has been suggested in the present writ petition. He, however, submits that there is likelihood of the respondents declaring the bid of the petitioner, if applied through the firm, as non-responsive, in case the insolvency certificate of the partnership firm is not filed. The said apprehension is based on the interpretation given by the department in the previous round of the bidding process. Thus the submission is that the respondents should clarify as to whether they actually require insolvency certificate of the

firm also in case bid is submitted in the name of partnership firm. 4) Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Nagar Palika Parishad states that today is the meeting for Pre-bid Clarification and in the said meeting Nagar Palika Parishad would clarify every aspect. He also makes statement that under the Clause in question only insolvency of the partners of the firm would be required and not that of the partnership firm as a separate entity. 5)

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that the clarification aforesaid made by learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad is sufficient to dispel the apprehension. 6)

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7)

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

_______________________

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

_________________

SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 5TH JUNE, 2026 Negi

HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf116 e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51A7 22A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB2A15 24A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.06.05 15:56:52 +05'30'

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 468 OF 2026 5TH JUNE, 2026 Naveen Agarwal …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State : Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: