IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3362 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.11.2011 Bansal Construction Company Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Ms. Monica Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.5. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award of contract to respondent No.5 for repair of road and laying of PC on 300 sq. yards plots of Dubri Urban Estate, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of Clause 31 of the tender, the rates offered by respondent No.5 have to be calculated on the basis of the rates prevalent on the date of the tender, whereas the same have been calculated on the basis of old rates. Clause 31 reads as under: “31. Unless otherwise specifically quoted or written in clarity that contractor is ready to execute the work on old premiums as estimated the rates quoted in tender shall be calculated in comparative statement on ceiling premiums prevailing on the date of tenders.” CWP No.3362 of 2011 We have heard learned counsel for parties but unable to agree with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There are three different components to calculate the estimated cost of work. One is common scheduled rates, second is ceiling premium and third is rates of non scheduled items. The petitioner has offered on the basis of common scheduled rates, ceiling premium and in respect of non scheduled items whereas respondent no.5 has quoted on the basis of the new ceiling premium with further stipulation that difference of bitumen will be charged extra. The Municipal Corporation has calculated the cost of works. The offer of respondent No.5 was found to be lower by Rs.4,50,988/- as per the detailed calculations given in the written statement. Clause 31 of the tender conditions deals with ceiling premium alone. It contemplates that unless the contractor clearly specifies that he is ready to execute the work of old premium, the ceiling premium prevailing on the date of tender shall be applied. As mentioned above, ceiling premium is one of the components to assess the estimated cost of work. The other two components are common scheduled rates and non-scheduled items. On the basis of calculations, as given in the written statement, the estimated cost of work of item Nos.45 & 48 is lower by Rs.4,50,988/- given by respondent No.5. The petitioner has given rate of all the items, which includes commercial rates + ceiling premiums + non-scheduled items. The petitioner has filed rejoinder, but the calculations given in the written statement have not been controverted. It is not disputed that the cost of work estimated is as per the rates quoted by the petitioner, but only dispute is regarding the cost of work estimated as per the offer of respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the Corporation stated that respondent No.5 shall not be paid more than 2 CWP No.3362 of 2011 the amount arrived at in respect of item Nos.45 & 48, as mentioned in the written statement. It is method of calculations as to how cost of works has to be worked out. There are different components of the work, which has to be paid differently i.e. on the basis of new schedule of rates, ceiling premium and non scheduled items etc. Clause 31 deals with the cost component of ceiling premium on the date of submission of tender. Still in view of the statement of learned counsel for the Corporation, that the contractor shall be paid only in the manner calculated in the written statement, we find that no case is made out to return a finding that the Corporation has given contract to a person, who has offered higher rates than the petitioner. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the award of contract to respondent No.5, which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 07.11.2011 Pka/Vimal 3