IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 20546 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 24.12.2009 Jyoti Sharma and another .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioners have filed the instant petition against the order dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-17), whereby their representation against awarding of the contract for completing the unfinished work of the housing colony of Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram Thermal Power Project, Yamuna Nagar, in favour of respondent No.4, has been rejected. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said contract was awarded to respondent No.4 without issuing any tender notice and providing an opportunity to the petitioners to compete for the said tender. It is the conceded position that the work for construction of the housing colony of Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram Thermal Power Project, Yamuna Nagar, was allotted to one M/s Starrco Engineers and Contractors vide CWP No. 20546 of 2009 -2- memo dated 24.8.2007. According to the term of the contract, the said project was to be completed within a period of 15 months. It is also conceded position that both the petitioners are the sub contractors of M/s Starrco Engineers and Contractors. When M/s Starrco Engineers and Contractors failed to complete the said work as per the provisions of the agreement within the stipulated time, the agreement was terminated by the respondents vide memo dated 12.6.2009. After the termination of the contract agreement, the fresh tenders for the balance work were invited vide notice dated 12.6.2009, published in three news papers, namely The Tribune, Hindustan Times and Dainik Bhaskar. The tender documents were also placed on web-sites of HSRDC as well as Haryana PWD (B&R). It is the admitted position that in response to the said notice, the petitioner did not apply for any tender. It is the case of the petitioner that M/s Starrco Engineers & Contractors challenged the termination order of its contract before this Court by filing CWP No. 9307 of 2009. In that petition, an offer was made by it that the balance work will be completed by it within three months. Accordingly, this Court directed the respondents to consider the prayer made by the said firm. Thereafter, vide order dated 8.7.2009, the prayer of the said firm was accepted, subject to certain terms and conditions and the said writ petition was disposed of. When M/s Starrco Engineers & Contractors failed to achieve even the interim financial targets as per the agreed stipulations, the agreement was again terminated by the respondent CWP No. 20546 of 2009 -3- vide order dated 24.8.2009. Since the tenders for the balance work had already been received by the respondents in terms of the aforesaid advertisement, which were valid for a period of 120 days, the lowest tender given by respondent No.4 was accepted and the tender for the remaining unexecuted work was given to respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that after termination of the contract on 24.8.2009 for the second time, the respondents should have issued fresh advertisement, for inviting tenders for the remaining unexecuted work of the project. Since the respondents-State have given contract to respondent No.4 on the basis of the advertisement dated 12.6.2009, therefore, the petitioners, who are the sub-contractors and had also executed some work during the extended period, have been deprived of the opportunity to compete for the said tender. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in awarding the contract to respondent No.4 for executing the remaining work of the housing colony of Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram Thermal Power Project, Yamuna Nagar. In the instant petition, the validity of the termination of the contract agreement in favour of M/s Starrco Engineers and Contractors, to whom the petitioners were the sub- contractors, is not under challenge. The issue is whether the tender for the remaining un-executed work of the said colony was given to respondent No.4 legally and arbitrarily. The contention of the petitioner that the said work was allotted to respondent No.4 without inviting the tender notice or CWP No. 20546 of 2009 -4- providing an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the same cannot be accepted. After termination of the contract of M/s Starrco Engineers and Contractors on 12.6.2009, the tenders were invited for the balance work by publishing tender notice in three news papers and by putting the tender document on the web-sites of HSRDC and Haryana PWD (B&R). In response to the said advertisement, admittedly the petitioners did not submit their tenders. When even after the extended time, M/s Starrco Engineers and Contractors could not complete the work, the respondents-State, who had already received the tenders of various persons in response to the said advertisement, have selected the tender of respondent No.4, who gave lowest quotation and the contract was given to him for executing the remaining work. We do not find any illegality in the same. The petitioners have nothing to do with the extension of time given to M/s Starrco Engineers and Contractors. If they were having an interest to give quotation for the aforesaid tender of the remaining work, they could have submitted their tenders in response to the aforesaid advertisement, but they intentionally having the knowledge of the same did not submit the same. Now, they cannot be permitted to say that after the termination of the contract agreement, even after the extended time, the respondents-State should have issued fresh advertisement. When the tenders received by the respondent-Nigam response to the earlier advertisement dated 12.6.2009 were valid, as per the condition of the bid document, then the respondent- Nigam was not under any obligation to issue fresh advertisement, inviting CWP No. 20546 of 2009 -5- fresh tenders for the allotment of the balance work of the aforesaid project. It appears that the petitioners are fighting the lost battle of M/s Starrco Engineers and Contractors, because they are its sub-contractors. Since the petitioners were having no interest in execution of the remaining work, therefore, in spite of having the knowledge of the invitation of tenders for execution of the balance work, they did not apply for the same. Now, if quotation of respondent No.4 being the lowest has been accepted, the petitioners cannot challenge the said action on the ground that they were not provided an opportunity to compete with respondent No.4. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 24, 2009 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) ndj JUDGE