Accordingly, and taking into account that the deviation from the wording of the bank guarantee, As updated in the clarification document 5, It is minor (Addition of a linkage mechanism, For a short period of time, In relation to the sum of 25,000 Q"H only), and the Respondents 5-3 Act in good faith (And they did not try to gain any advantage for themselves), After all, even if I were of the opinion that together with bank guarantees that do not conform to the wording in the document, clarifications 5, Defect, I would not find it justified to disqualify the Respondents' proposals 3- 5 Due to this defect.
- In summary: for the reasons detailed below, I would suggest to my colleagues that the appeal be dismissed, and with it, in any case, the application for interim relief will also be rejected. I will further suggest to my colleagues that given that no responses to the appeal were submitted on behalf of the respondents (but only to a request for temporary relief in the appeal), and no hearing was held therein, the appellant will bear the respondents' expenses on the lower side as follows: ILS 10,000 to the municipality and the development company; ILS 10,000 to Respondent 3; and ILS 10,000 to respondent 4.
Given today, the 24th of Nissan Tashfshfa, a declaratory judgment - general (April 22, 2025).
|
Ofer Grosskopf Judge
|
Yechiel KasherJudge
|
Ruth Ronen Judge
|