C. W. P. No. 18574 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. W. P. No. 18574 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 09, 2008. Santosh Medicos .... Petitioner Vs. Director, PGIMER and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Mohan Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikram Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for respondent no. 3. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1. This petition seeks a direction for considering the tender submitted by the petitioner for allotment of Chemist Shop No.1, under Ramp-B, Nehru Hospital, PGIMER. C. W. P. No. 18574 of 2008 2. Only contention put forth is as per tender conditions, a person already having a licence for the similar work, was not eligible. Condition no.5(n) in the tender notice, Annexure P-2, is as under :- “n) An Affidavit to the effect that the applicant/firm either himself/herself or through any partners/close relation i.e., son/daughter/father/mother does not already have a concurrent licence from the PGI or running the trade mentioned in this tender.” 3. On October 30, 2008, following order was passed :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to condition No.5(n) and submits that respondent no.3 was not eligible. He also submits that audited balance-sheets and recent non-conviction certificate were duly furnished by the petitioner before opening of the tenders but the tender of the petitioner was not considered. Notice of motion for 28.11.2008.” 4. It has not been disputed that respondent no.3 was already having a shop and also gave an affidavit to this effect. However, respondent no.3 stated that if allotted, he will surrender the other shop, which did not render it eligible. In view of clear stipulation in the tender conditions, a person already having a shop was not eligible. 5. In view of above, allotment in favour of respondent no.3 is contrary to the tender conditions and illegal. 6. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct respondents no.1 C. W. P. No. 18574 of 2008 and 2 to set aside the allotment made in favour of respondent no.3 and proceed further in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 09, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE