Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Mr. D.K.Upadhyaya, learned Advocate put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1 by filing his Vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.
Heard Mr, Alok Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.K.Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Mr. Sanjay Bhasin learned Advocate.
The petitioner is aggrieved with tender process which has been finalised in favour of the opposite party no.2. There is objection against the maintainability of the writ petition that the petitioner being an agent of opposite party no.3 participated in the tender proceeding and since the opposite party no.3, who is aggrieved person being defeated party has not come-forward to challenge the same, the petitioner being an agent of opposite party no.3 has no locus to challenge the auction proceeding through the instant writ petition.
Upon perusal of the record, we find that opposite party no.3 authorised the petitioner to perform the activities on commission basis only on the event of award of the tender, but the fact remains that the opposite party no.3 has been defeated, therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner may be interested person in performing the activities under the authority of opposite party no.3, but on the event of failure of opposite party no.3 to achieve the tender he has no locus to challenge the tender process independently.
Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.6.2010 GSY