CWP No.6530 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No.6530 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.04.2009 Darshan Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). A tender notice was issued by PUNGRAIN (respondent No.3) in January, 2009, inviting sealed tenders from the interested transport contractors and labour contractors for loading and unloading labour cartage work, for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. As per the tender notice, tenders were liable to be deposited by the interested parties by 4.2.2009 upto 5.00 PM. The tender notice also clarified, that the tenders would be opened on 6.2.2009 at 9.00 AM. For some reason, the process of finalizing tenders, according to the petitioner, could not be finalized in furtherance of the tender notice issued in January, 2009. Another tender notice was issued in March, 2009 (Annexure P- 9), wherein tenders were required to be deposited for the same works, as have been referred to in the foregoing paragraph, by 21.3.2009. They were CWP No.6530 of 2009 2 required to be opened on 22.3.2009 at 3.00 PM. It is the contention of the petitioner, that in furtherance of the tender notice issued in March, 2009, the petitioner deposited tenders on or before the appointed date. The tenders deposited by the petitioner, were for Badala Mandi to Kapurthala i.e. for a distance of 8 Kms. @ Rs.10.20 per quintal. He also deposited tenders for Baler Khanpur to Kapurthala i.e. for a distance of 10 Kms. @ 11.10 per quintal. Another tender for Kala Mandi to Kapurthala i.e. for a distance of 15 Kms @ Rs.12.60 per quintal, was also deposited by the petitioner. Yet another tender for Sidwan Mandi to Kapurthala i.e. for a distance of 14 Kms. @ Rs.11.20 per quintal, was deposited by the petitioner. Despite the aforesaid deposits made by the petitioner, it is the contention of the petitioner, that all the tenders, under reference, have been finalized in favour of Jaswant Singh (respondent No.6). For the Badala Mandi tender, Jaswant Singh (respondent No.6) is stated to have submitted a tender @ Rs.9.80 per quintal, for Baler Khanpur, the rate quoted by Jaswant Singh (respondent No.6) was Rs.10.50 per quintal, for Kala Mandi, the rate quoted by Jaswant Singh (respondent No.6) was Rs.11.50 per quintal, and lastly, for Sidwan Mandi, Jaswant Singh (respondent No.6) offered to execute the work @ Rs.10.55 per quintal. Having invited this Court’s attention to the rates at which Jaswant Singh (respondent No.6) offered to execute the different contracts pertaining to different Mandis, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that if the petitioner had been invited for negotiations, the petitioner would have offered a rate equivalent to that of Jaswant Singh (respondent No.6), and even less than the rate offered by CWP No.6530 of 2009 3 Jaswant Singh. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the action of the respondents in not inviting the petitioner for negotiations, vitiates the entire process of finalizing quotations in favour of Jaswant Singh (respondent No.6). The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that Jaswant Singh (respondent No.6) did not submit any tender in his own name, whatsoever, and that, tenders were issued in some other name, but accepted in favour of Jaswant Singh (respondent No.6). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would have placed relevant material on the record of this case, but the same was not intentionally supplied to the petitioner by the respondents. In this behalf, it is pointed out that an application seeking the aforesaid information was made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, but no action has been taken by the respondents thereon. In so far as, the first contention is concerned, it is not possible for us to accept the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the accepted position recorded in paragraph 12 of the instant writ petition, it is apparent that the lower tenderer has been chosen over and above the petitioner. The action of the respondents in doing so is not only justified but also legal. As such, we find no merit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is no justification at the hands of the petitioner to claim negotiations. The lowest tenderer is liable to be chosen and the lowest tenderer has, in fact, been chosen. In so far as, the second contention is concerned, there is no material on the record of this case on the basis of which the same can be CWP No.6530 of 2009 4 accepted. The instant plea could have been raised by the petitioner after obtaining relevant material. The petitioner having approached this Court without the receipt of the relevant material on the basis of which the second submission has been advanced, has himself prejudiced his claim. As such, we are satisfied, that the second submission raised by the petitioner isliable to be rejected on account of the fact, that there is no material on the record of this case to support the instant submission. Having dealt with the controversy in the manner raised by the petitioner, we are satisfied that the petitioner has misused the jurisdiction of this Court. We are also satisfied that for the aforestated action at the hands of the petitioner, costs should be imposed on him. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified as Rs.25,000/-. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Legal Services Authority, Punjab, within one month from today and a receipt thereof shall be placed on the record of the instant case. In case, the aforesaid costs are not deposited within the time stipulated hereinabove, the Registry is directed to re-list this case for motion hearing for the recovery of costs. Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge (Uma Nath Singh) Judge. 30.04.2009 sk.