Caselaw

Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 20037-03-25 Zohar Hutzot Ltd. v. Kiryat Ono Municipality - part 6

April 22, 2025
Print

Finally, the Appellant reiterated its argument that from the moment a letter of guarantee was attached to the proposals of respondents 3-5 in accordance with the original wording that was attached as Appendix 4 to the tender booklet, and not in accordance with the updated wording that was attached to the clarification document 5, the tenders committee should have disqualified their proposals.

  1. Simultaneously with the appeal, the appellant filed, on March 9, 2025, a request for temporary relief for the period of the appeal, similar to the interim order she petitioned in the trial court. In her application, the appellant reiterated the reasons for the appeal and argued that in accordance with them, the chances of the appeal she filed were good.  In addition, the appellant argued that the balance of convenience is tilted in its favor, since if the execution of the tender is not delayed, its appeal will be thwarted.
  2. In my decision of March 9, 2025, I instructed the respondents to respond to the request for interim relief filed by the appellant. In addition, I ordered the issuance of a temporary order according to which the winners of the tender will refrain from constructing and installing new advertising facilities in accordance with the tender, until a different decision is made, similar to the interim order given by the trial court.
  3. In the reply submitted on behalf of respondent 4, respondent 4 argues that the appellant's request for temporary relief should be rejected and the temporary order given in my decision of March 9, 2025 should be revoked. In addition, respondent 4 petitions to dismiss the appeal at this stage.  In doing so, respondent No.  4 relies on the reasoning of the trial court, while adding the following two emphases:

            First, The Respondent 4 Claims that the Appellant's petition was submitted to the Court of First Instance with delay, since the appellant learned that she did not win the tender on the same day 7.1.2025, And at the latest in the day 20.1.2025, But she filed her petition only on the day 10.2.2025 - Significant period in all matters relating to a public tender.

Previous part1...56
7...12Next part