CWP No. 7176/2010 16.03.2011 Present: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 & 2 Mr. S. C. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Petitioners have prayed for the following relief: “a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondents 1 and 2 to open and declare the results of Technical Bids as well as Financial Bids of Tender process initiated by them for allotment of Canteen in the premises of Respondent No.1 vide tender Annexure P- 1 and allot the canteen to the Highest Bidder who fulfills the Technical qualifications also from amongst the eligible tenderers. b) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent State to produce on record the relevant record of the present case and (sic.) this Hon’ble Court and to pay to the petitioner the costs of the petition.” 2. For running canteen in the premises of RPGMC & Hospital, Tanda, District Kangra, H.P., respondent No.1 invited bids in terms of Annexure P-1. It is not in dispute that only three persons being petitioners and private respondent No.3 responded to the same. Technical bids were opened on 26.10.2010. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No.2 Sh. Sandeep Ohri and private respondent No.3 Sh. Trilok Raj Sharma were found not to be eligible. 3. This petition was filed on 16.11.2010 on the apprehension that the process for allotting the Canteen may not be completed by respondent No.1. On 3.12.2010, this Court directed respondent No. 1 to open the Financial Bids and report the outcome to the Court. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Financial Bids were opened from which it is evident that petitioner No.1 was in any case the highest bidder, he was ready to pay highest rent for the Canteen premises. Record reveals that even if all the applicants were technically eligible, petitioner No.1 was entitled to and eligible for award of contract, being the highest bidder. It has come on record that respondent No.1 has not taken any further steps in inviting fresh tenders nor is there any concrete proposal in that regard. Private respondent also has no objection to the same. Consequently respondent No.1 is directed to take further appropriate action in completing the process of tender immediately. 4. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. March 16, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.