In this context, the Petitioner's argument of a violation of the rules of natural justice and her right to argue regarding the termination of the engagement with her and to go to a tender should also be rejected, since in the circumstances the Petitioner did not, in my opinion, have any right to plead in the said contexts, and she did not have any protected interest that could have established such a right.
I am of the opinion that the Petitioner also did not substantiate its claim that the Municipality was prevented from proactively approaching potential bidders, an application that was in the circumstances intended to increase competition in the tender and increase the chances of receiving quality bids. This, in crisis, because the alleged application itself did not give preference to any bidder over other bidders, in the framework of the tender proceeding.
Therefore, in my opinion, no defect was found in the conduct of the municipality or in its decisions, as well as in the decisions of the tenders committee, that may justify the intervention of the court, including in the way of granting the limited relief requested in the main arguments.
In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the need to discuss the claim of delay has of course become superfluous.
- Thus, The petition is dismissed.
The Petitioner will bear the expenses of the Municipality (which submitted a reply and main arguments and appeared for the hearing of the petition), in the sum of ILS 20,000, and the expenses of Respondent No. 2 (whose counsel appeared for the hearing of the petition, but no reply and main arguments were submitted on its behalf), in the sum of ILS 10,000, in addition to the expenses awarded in favor of the Respondents, in the course of the hearing of the application for an interim order.
Given today, 2 Adar 5785, 02 March 2025, in the absence of the parties.
| Gad Gideon, Judge |