CWP No. 9293 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9293 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.04.2011 Ram Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. H.C.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.1, 2, and 5. Mr. B.S.Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) CM No. 3628 of 2011 Having considered the statements made in this Civil Miscellaneous Application we are of the view that if the petitioners or any one of them are entertaining any apprehension with regard to their lives and safety it will be open for them to approach the concerned police authority for taking appropriate action in accordance with law. Civil Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in the above terms. CWP No. 9293 of 2009 This writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeks an order from the Court for taking necessary action on the basis of the complaint dated 01.10.2008 (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioners and for the prosecution of the respondents No. 3 and 4 for causing financial loss to the State ex-chequer. The audit of the accounts of the Mansa Division of PWD (B&R) for the years 2006- CWP No. 9293 of 2009 [2] 07, 2007-08 and upto May, 2009 has also been prayed for. The short case projected by the petitioners is that pursuant to a tender called by the PWD (B&R) Mansa Division for construction of a judicial complex at Budhlada three tenders were received including one from the respondent No.4. It is the case of the petitioners that the rates quoted by the respondent No.4 were exorbitant and this was pointed to the respondent No.3. The 4th respondent by letter dated 05.03.2008 had expressed his readiness to offer a rebate of 2% on the rates quoted. According to the petitioners subsequently the rebate offer was manipulated from 2% to 0.2% and a contract was accordingly awarded to the respondent No.4 resulting in a loss of about Rs. 10 lacs to the public ex-chequer. It is on the basis of the said facts that the directions already noticed above have been prayed for in the writ petition. The stand of the petitioners is hotly contested by the State of Punjab as well as by the respondent No.3. According to the respondents the present Public Interest Litigation is a motivated one, prompted by the service rivalry nourished by the petitioner No. 1 against the respondent No.3. The respondents have further claimed in the written statement that the award of the contract in favour of the respondent No.4 was after following all due norms and the judicial complex has been completed in the meantime. The respondent No.3 has particularly claimed that the allegation with regard to manipulation of the offer of rebate, as made by the petitioner, is totally false. A consideration of the pleadings of the parties would go to indicate that the basic facts in the present case and the circumstances surrounded the offer of rebate made by the respondent No.4 is highly disputed. Ordinarily in the normal course on such disputed issues of fact, the writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised. However, keeping in mind that the present is a PIL the Court is of the view that the public interest would be best served if the basic facts surrounding the allegations levelled by the petitioners are verified. CWP No. 9293 of 2009 [3] We, therefore, close this PIL by directing a preliminary/fact finding enquiry to be conducted by the Director Vigilance, Punjab and for further action in the matter on the basis of such findings as may be recorded by the said authority. The consequential action in terms of the present directions will be initiated and completed by the Director Vigilance within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, the allegations levelled by the petitioners are found to be untenable and incorrect by the authority appointed by this Court, the respondent No. 3 will be at liberty to take recourse to all legal remedies as may be available to him against the petitioners. Beyond the above we do not consider it justified to issue any further direction or pass any further order. PIL shall stands disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 06.04.2011 'ravinder'