IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.12612 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.9.2010 Sandeep Kumar. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 17.7.2010, Annexure P-9, passed by Haryana State Road and Bridges Development Corporation (HSRDC), respondent No.2, on the representation of the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he gave his bid in pursuance of Tender Notice dated 31.3.2010, Annexure P-1, for a period of one year for toll collection on Shamli-Panipat road. Though bid of the petitioner was duly registered, the same was not processed on the account of technical snag in the system in processing e-tenders. His representation having not been CWP No.12612 of 2010 considered, he filed CWP No.9136 of 2010 which was disposed of on 18.5.2010 with a direction to take decision on the said representation. In pursuance thereof, impugned order was passed, inter-alia, stating as under:- “5. As regards technical snag in the system of e- tendering, it is informed that there was no technical snag in the system as informed by the agency M/s Nextenders (India) Ltd. Since during this period i.e. on 13.5.2010 and 14.5.2010 a number of contenders submitted the tender fees as well as their bid online on this very system. Further as informed by the agency M/s Nex Tenders (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was due to improper credit cards used by you that your payment was not accepted by the system....” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that tender of the petitioner was ignored without any valid reason, resulting in loss of Rs.43 lacs to the public exchequer. 5. On the other hand, stand of respondent No.2 is that e- tender being automatic process, in view of improper credit card used by the petitioner and payment having not been accepted by the system, tender of the petitioner could not be considered. 6. We are of the view that the matter involves disputed question of fact whether the system was not working properly and had a snag which resulted in rejection of bid of the petitioner. Stand of respondent No.3 is that non-consideration of bid of the petitioner was not on account of any technical snag but on 2 CWP No.12612 of 2010 account of invalid credit card of the petitioner. The said question may require adjudication in the light of expert evidence or otherwise. The same cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this will not debar the petitioner from availing any other alternative remedy in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 15, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3