C.W.P. No. 7281 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7281 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 27.7.2009 Vinod Kumar Angi ..........Petitioner Versus Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board ..........Respondents and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri C.K. Jha, Advocate for the respondents. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition seeks quashing of letters dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure P-14), forfeiting the earnest money and dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P-16), debarring the petitioner from tendering for two years. 2. The petitioner in pursuance of tender notice submitted tender for construction of Dozer-cum-Tonner Room, CMT. CCT, supply and fabrication and erection of aluminum gates and 3 ton electric hoist for chlorination of 48 MLD STP UASB treatment plant at Jamalpur, Ludhiana. The petitioner gave his bid and was called for negotiations. Finally vide letter dated 14.11.2008 (Annexure P-7), the work was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner raised an objection that the rate mentioned in the letter of allotment was not the rate quoted by him in the tender and he was not willing to execute the work. This led to issuance of the impugned C.W.P. No. 7281 of 2009 (O&M) (2) letters, forfeiting the security and debarring the petitioner for tendering for two years. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the respondents have not imposed any fresh rates on the petitioner but only accepted the rates which the petitioner himself has quoted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that chart in para 4 (i) of the allotment letter is not based on rates quoted, which is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. 6. In view of above, we are of the view that the question raised is a disputed question of fact and the writ petition is not a proper remedy for deciding the said question. We, thus, relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy in accordance with law. 7. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 27, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No