CWP No. 6278 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6278 of 2011 Date of decision:- 07.04.2011 The Vijay Coop. (L&C) Society Ltd. Village Sarawan, Tehsil and District Faridkot through its President Sh. Paramjit Singh. ...... Petitioner Vs The State of Punjab and another. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (ORAL) The tender submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the NIT (Annexure P2) was rejected on the ground that requisite documents and information as required under the terms and conditions of tenders were not furnished. The said fact has been stated in a letter dated 28.03.2011 addressed to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Hari-ke-Canal Division, Ferozepur. The aforesaid letter dated 28.03.2011 was pursuant to the petitioner's letter dated 22.03.2011 seeking the reasons for the rejection of his tender. The petitioner has disputed the fact that his tender was not accompanied by requisite documents and other information. We have noticed that the main prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to decide on the representation dated CWP No. 6278 of 2011 2 28.03.2011 submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2, namely, the Executive Engineer, Hari-ke-Canal Division, Ferozepur. In view of the dispute on the basic facts as indicated above and having regard to the prayer made by the petitioner, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by requiring the respondent No. 2, namely, the Executive Engineer, Hari- ke-Canal Division, Ferozepur to decide on the representation of the petitioner dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure P4). We are told that the tenders submitted by other tenderers, in the meantime, have been opened, though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to apprise us as to whether any work order has been allotted. Be that as it may, once the representation of the petitioner is decided by the respondent No. 2 in terms of the present order, which will be done forthwith, further action as necessary in law shall be taken by the said respondent No. 2 in the matter of allotment of the contract work. This will dispose of the writ petition. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 07.04.2011 Amodh