CWP No.11192 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11192 of 2011 Date of Decision: 22.06.2011 A2Z Infrastructure Limited ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate and Mr. Arun Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** HEMANT GUPTA, J. The respondent No.2 published a request for proposal for integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management Project for Jalandhar Cluster in July, 2010. The petitioner submitted its offer to carry out such project in response to such request of proposal. The petitioner filed a writ petition No.9818 of 2011 before this Court on the apprehension that though the petitioner was the technically qualified and lowest bidder but without any valid reason, the work is proposed to be allotted to somebody else. On such contention, the respondent No.2- Director, Department of Local Government, Punjab was directed by this Court to take a decision on representations submitted by the petitioner within two weeks. Thereafter, the competent authority has decided to scrap the earlier tender process and to invite fresh tenders. On 25th May 2011, the Consultant of respondent No.2 has communicated to the bidders including the present petitioner that Department of Local Government is inviting fresh request for 1 CWP No.11192 of 2011 proposal from qualified bidders. It is the said decision which is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was technically qualified and lowest bidder, therefore, the bid of the petitioner is liable to be accepted and in any case the bid is not to be accepted the reasons for not accepting the bid are to be disclosed. Reliance is placed upon M/s Star Enterprises and other v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and others, (1990) 3 SCC 280 and Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. and others, (1997) 1 SCC 738 to support said argument. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any merit in the present writ petition. There is no dispute with the proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgments that if the highest or the lowest bidder, as the case may be, is not to be accepted, the authority must record reasons for rejecting such bid. But in the present case, the bid of the petitioner is not accepted but it has been decided to issue fresh tenders. Both the judgments do not deal with question wherein the decision is to reinvite the offers. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE JUNE 22, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) RAJAN JUDGE 2