C.W.P No. 2389 of 2008(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2389 of 2008 Date of decision : August 26, 2008 Truck Union Bhogpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar ...... Petitioner through Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate v. State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents through Mr.Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order, dated 12.12.2007, whereby respondent No.2 awarded road transport contract to respondent No.3 for a period of one year w.e.f 12.12.2007 for movement of stock from Bhogpur to Valley (Srinagar, Lathpura, Mirbazar C.W.P No. 2389 of 2008(O&M) ::2:: & Baramula). The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the advertisement was completely cryptic in so much as essential details were not mentioned therein but it was mentioned that details can be obtained from the District Offices or Regional Offices of respondents No.1 and 2 or down loaded from the web site. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner this resulted in there being only one applicant for the said contract, since the petitioner as well as other contractors did not even come to know of the said tender. Counsel for respondent No.2 countered by urging that the period of contract is almost over and, thus, this petition should be dismissed as infructuous. He further defended the advertisement and stated that the same met the requirements of law. In our opinion, no useful purpose would be served by adjudicating on the primary issue, raised in this writ petition, since only a short period is left for the subsistence of the contract. Having said so, we do find that the information provided in the advertisement was clearly insufficient in so much as it was not even mentioned that the road transport contract for the center at Bhogpur was to be awarded and it was only mentioned in the following terms “.....road transport contractors for one year for various centers of FCI, Punjab Region to different centers of HP, J&K and Rajasthan.” In the circumstances, we direct respondents No.1 and 2 to ensure that any advertisement published henceforth should necessarily mention the center for which a particular tender is sought. Of course, once the same is mentioned it would not be unreasonable for the respondents to expect the interested persons to obtain the details either from their various C.W.P No. 2389 of 2008(O&M) ::3:: offices or down load the same from their official web site. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE August 26, 2008 'kk'