IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.20795 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 27.01.2011 Manmohan Rai ....Petitioner(s) vs. Sh.Neel Kanth and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.G.C.Dhuriwala, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. *** Ranjan Gogoi, ACJ. (Oral) The writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.P.No.19088 of 2010 challenging the same tender process as involved in the present writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 26.10.2010 by directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents. Such a representation having been submitted on 30.10.2010 the same was rejected by order dated 12.11.2010. It is the aforesaid order which has been assailed in the present writ petition. Two grievances, in the main, have been raised by the petitioner against the tender process for appointment of Transport Contractor in the Bharariwal Center of the FCI. Firstly, it is contended that the information that the price bids of the tenderers will be opened on 11.10.2010 was sent to the petitioner by a letter of the same day i.e. 11.10.2010. The second contention is that the price bid of respondent No.4 was manipulated by allowing the said tenderer to re-write his offer from 228% ASOR to 238% ASOR which is the offer of the petitioner. In the impugned order dated 12.11.2010 it is recorded that on C.W.P.No.20795 of 2010 -2- 8.10.2010 a telegram was sent to the petitioner intimating that the date fixed for opening of the price bids was 11.10.2010. The letter dated 11.10.2010, relied upon by the petitioner, was in fact the post-copy of the telegram sent to him. From the counter-affidavit of the respondents, which is available on record, it is also clear that the intimation to respondent No.4 with regard to the date of opening of the price bids was also sent by telegram on 8.10.2010. Regarding the second contention raised, the respondent No.2 has recorded that the rate offered by respondent No.4 was in fact 228 % ASOR and the middle digit of 2 does not reveal any over-writing and in fact the said figure had also been expressed in words. It is also recorded in the impugned order that at the time of opening of the price bid, another contractor i.e. M/s. Malkiat Singh Baldev Singh was present which fact would have made it impossible to sustain the allegations levelled by the petitioner. According to us, both the questions raised by the writ petitioner are pure questions of fact which have been reasonably and adequately answered by respondent No.2. On the face of the record, there is no unreasonableness, much less any arbitrariness, in the decision making process. Consequently, the intervention of the Court will not be justified. CWP shall accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE January 27, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE