The Supreme Court has quashed the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order that permitted the revival of a tender initially canceled due to alleged irregularities. The tender, concerning the construction of a commercial complex in Shimla, was marred by irregularities identified by an independent committee appointed by the High Court. Despite these findings, the High Court allowed the tender to be revived based on statements from HIMUDA (Respondent No.1) and Vasu Constructions (Respondent No.2). The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not considering the earlier findings of gross irregularities and collusion between HIMUDA and Vasu Constructions. The appeal was allowed with a penalty of ₹5,00,000 imposed on HIMUDA.

Background and Chronology of Events:

• Initial Tender and Disputes:
  On 15/16.11.2018, HIMUDA issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for constructing a commercial complex in Shimla. The tender process was challenged by unsuccessful bidder Dalip S. Rathore, leading to judicial intervention.

• Committee Reports and High Court Findings:
  Multiple committees were appointed by HIMUDA and the High Court, which identified lapses and irregularities in the tender process. The High Court ordered an independent inquiry and directed the cancellation of the tender based on the committee's findings.

• Subsequent Legal Proceedings:
  Despite the High Court’s earlier order and the cancellation of the tender, Vasu Constructions filed a new writ petition. The High Court, on 18.10.2022, allowed the tender's revival, based on statements from HIMUDA and Vasu Constructions, leading to the present appeal in the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Criticism:

• Improper Disposal of the Case:
  The Supreme Court questioned how the High Court could dispose of the writ petition by simply recording statements from the involved parties, without addressing the serious findings of irregularities.

• Collusion and Misuse of Judicial Process:
  The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the High Court’s oversight in detecting the collusion between HIMUDA and Vasu Constructions, which sought to bypass due legal process and award the contract under questionable circumstances.

Supreme Court’s Decision:

• Quashing of High Court Order:
  The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in government tenders.

• Imposition of Costs:
  The Supreme Court imposed a cost of ₹5,00,000 on HIMUDA for its malafide actions and misuse of the judicial process, directing the amount to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.

Conclusion:

• Liberty to Initiate Fresh Tender Process:
  The Supreme Court allowed HIMUDA to initiate a fresh tender process in accordance with the law, ensuring due process and transparency.