Gujarat High Court High Court

Appearance : vs Mr Maulik Shelat on 9 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Appearance : vs Mr Maulik Shelat on 9 April, 2010
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/4260/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4260 of 2010
 

 
======================================


 

ELEKTRONIK
LAB & ANOTHER
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT 

 

THROUGH
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER 

 

======================================
 
Appearance : 
Mr
Mitul K Shelat for the petitioners  
Mr Maulik Shelat, Assistant
Government Pleader for the
Respondents 
====================================== 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

Date
: 09/04/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)

The
case of the petitioners is that tender for Fish Finders with GPS
System was given thrice and in the third attempt the petitioner is
qualified though on earlier occasions once the system of the
petitioner did not qualify and once he did not participate. The
grievance of the petitioners is that in the third time the machine
meets the specifications but a complaint was received and accordingly
two members of the Board re-examined and the machine is wanting in
one segment. According to him, this enquiry was motivated enquiry
to favour a particular dealer who had participated in the first
bidding and in the second round there were certain allegations
against him and enquiry was conducted against him and he did not
participate in the third bidding. From the narration of facts it
appears that this is not a case in which this Court should interfere.

The
goods of the petitioner is not such an essential item. That item is
already in the market and the Government is providing subsidy to the
same. Even if the present bidding is not culminated into a
contract and the Government does not award contract to the
petitioner, still, his product is always available in the market to
be purchased at a subsidised price.

In
that view of the matter, it is not a stage where this Court can
intervene. In that view of the matter, the present petition is
held meritless and the same is dismissed.

(Bhagwati
Prasad, J.)

(J.C.Upadhyaya,
J.)

*mohd

   

Top