IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.741 of 2007. Date of decision:29.3.2010 Bharat Electronics Ltd. ...Petitioner. Versus Union of India & ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B,Misra, Judge. For the Petitioner: Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Shilpa Sood, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr.Ankush Sood, Addl.A.G., for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr.Rupinder Singh Suri, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anand Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 7. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral) Petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (a) A suitable writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari/mandamus etc. setting aside award of impugned tender [Tender No. DIT [Swan- SITEG] 21/2005, awarded in favour of respondent No.4 on 2.2.207 for setting up HIMSWAN (Himachal Pradesh State Wide Area Network) project and operating and maintaining it for a period of five years, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide based upon extraneous considerations and also in gross violation of Government Tender norms and procedures, the same having been awarded absolutely contrary to Government instructions, tender conditio0ns and competition norms; (b) Still further issuing appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Mandamus directing the official respondents to consider and award tender [Tender no. DIT [SWAN-SITEG] 21/2005, for HIMSWAN to petitioner, as in the technical evaluation of petitioner’s bid, petitioner had been found R-1 after the opening of technical and commercial bids after petitioner had been found totally complaint to all the techno commercial norms by the Technical evaluation committee and it was thereafter, that surreptitiously negotiations had been held, fresh bidding had been resorted arbitrarily and illegally between petitioner and Respondent No.4, in which the Respondents illegally allowed Respondent No.4, to requite his price from initial Rs. 80 Crores, to Rs. 45 Crores, and also at this stage in allowing Respondent no.4 to substitute its product, in respect of which, technical evaluation had already been held; (c) Still further issuing suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari etc. setting aside the illegal resort to negotiation process resorted by the official respondents, without assigning any reasons, i.e. after declaring the petitioner as R-1 in evaluation of both the techno commercial bids and thereafter in illegally obtaining revised commercial bids through negotiations from respondent no.4 on 15.11.2006 and in declaring respondent no.4 as L- 1 subsequently, which practice is unheard of, illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner, and being in stark violation to the CVC guidelines; (d) Still further issuing suitable writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Mandamus directing a high level enquiry into the impugned tender process adopted by the official respondents, which was perse malafide, inasmuch as series of illegalities, irregularities and violations were committed by the official respondents in the impugned tender leading to the sidelining the petitioner-a Public Undertaking and in bestowing one after the other favours upon a private player like respondent no.4, in an illegal and arbitrary manner; Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.2 and 3, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 7, we do not think in the nature of the order that we propose to pass in this case, we should address the various arguments raised in the writ petition or the contentions raised by the respondents. However, it may not be altogether out of place to make an observation that certain allegations raised in the writ petition against respondents No.5, 6 and 7 appear to be unfounded and the same were not required to be raised for the purpose of the writ petition. Therefore, it is only appropriate that those allegations are expunged from the pleadings. Ordered accordingly. We find that the disputed work, referred to in this case, had already been awarded in the year 2006 and the work had already been executed to the satisfaction of all concerned and the network is working very well. Therefore, we do not think that this Court at this stage should go into the various other allegations raised in the writ petition. Suffice it to make an observation that in case if the petitioner has still any grievance, it will be left open to it to work out the same in appropriate proceedings before appropriate Forum. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti. . (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 29, 2010(s/sl) ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge