AMIT JOSHI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010156202026

2026:UHC:8030-DB

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


WPMB/724/2026
Amit Joshi
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Ayush Pokhriyal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Rahul Verma, learned AAG for the State.
3. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for
respondent no.2/URRDA.
4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Mr. Paritosh
Dalakoti, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
5. Uttarakhand Rural Road Development
Agency issued a Notice Inviting Tender. Petitioner
as well as respondent No. 4 submitted their bids in
response to the said Notice Inviting Tender. Since
the bid submitted by respondent No. 4 was found to
be the lowest, therefore, he was declared to be
successful.
6. Petitioner has challenged the decision of the
Procurement Evaluation Committee dated
20.07.2026, whereby the bid submitted by
respondent No. 4 was found to be responsive. He
has also challenged the decision taken on
29.08.2024 by the Technical Committee on the
complaints received against the bid of respondent

UKHC010156202026

2026:UHC:8030-DB

No. 4.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that respondent No. 4, which is registered as a
company, by a resolution dated 18.06.2024,
authorized one Mr. Amol Choudhary to submit bids,
enter into contracts, and be the authorized signatory
on behalf of the company, however, the meeting of
Board of Directors of the company held on
18.06.2024 was signed by only one of the director
and not by other directors. It is further contended
that Mr. Amol Choudhary is a partner in another
entity, M/s Shri Ram Construction, which is
registered with the State Public Works Department,
and petitioner made a complaint highlighting the
said aspect to the Chief Engineer, Uttarakhand
Rural Road Development Agency, but no decision
has been taken on that complaint.
8. Per contra, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, submits
that on 18.06.2024 itself, a General Power of
Attorney was executed in favour of Mr. Amol
Choudhary by both the Directors of the company,
who were not only present in the meeting held on
18.06.2024, but they also put their signatures on the
Meeting Register. He further submits that even
though one of the Director, Mr. D.P. Mittal, who
was signatory to the resolution dated 18.06.2024 as
well as the General Power of Attorney executed on
18.06.2024, passed away on 08.12.2025, but he was

UKHC010156202026

2026:UHC:8030-DB

replaced by his son, who was appointed as Director
of respondent no.4 company on 16.04.2026.
9. It is further contended by Mr. Shobhit Saharia
that respondent No. 4 is a private limited company,
which is a juristic person and has an independent
legal personality different from that of its Directors,
therefore, death of one of its directors will not
change the legal status, and respondent No. 4
company submitted the bid and the company was
declared L-1. Thus, it is contended that merely
because one of the directors, who signed the
resolution dated 18.06.2024 and also the General
Power of Attorney, passed away subsequently will
make no difference, and the challenge thrown by
the petitioner to the tender process only on this
ground is unsustainable.
10. As regards the second contention that Amol
Choudhary is partner in some other firm registered
with Uttarakhand Public Works Department, it is
contended that respondent No. 4 is a company
having independent juristic personality while a
partnership does not enjoy the same legal status. It
is submitted that if the N.I.T. or Instruction to
Bidders (ITB) does not disqualify Amol Chaudhary
from acting on behalf of respondent no.4, then the
challenge thrown by petitioner is legally not
sustainable.
11. This Court finds some substance in the
contention raised on behalf of respondent no.4.

UKHC010156202026

2026:UHC:8030-DB

Even otherwise also, Registration of the firm, in
which Mr. Amol Chaudhary is a partner, with PWD,
in itself is not a disqualification, unless it is
mentioned as disqualification in the N.I.T. on ITB.
12. Mr. Shailendra Chauhan, learned counsel
appearing for URRDA, submits that respondent No.
4 is the lowest bidder and there is difference of
about ₹40 lakhs in the bid amount indicated by
respondent No. 4 and the petitioner, who is L-2.
13. This Court finds substance in the contention
raised on behalf of respondent No. 4. The challenge
to eligibility of respondent No. 4 on the above-
stated grounds is without any substance.
14. As regards the grievance raised by petitioner
that his complaint made to the Chief Engineer,
Uttarakhand Rural Road Development Agency is
unaddressed, the writ petition is disposed of with
direction to the concerned Chief Engineer to
consider and decide the complaint made by
petitioner, if not already decided, within four weeks
from the date of production of certified copy of this
order.


(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
07.09.2026
BS







BALWANT
SINGH
Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf2 8cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F41
8755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2026.09.08 10:17:31 +05'30'