C.W.P.No.4140 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No.4140 of 2006 Date of Decision: 22 - 04 - 2008 Gammon India Limited .......Petitioner through Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Advocate v. State of Haryana and others .......Respondents through Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate with Mr.G.S.Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.M.L.Sarin, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ashish Dholikia, Advocate and Mr.Rohit Khanna, Advocate for respondents No.3,5 and 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER *** 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? *** VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) In Civil Writ Petition No.7162 of 2006, titled Madhucon Projects Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, by a detailed order, we have dismissed the petition of Madhucon Projects Ltd. Without going into the merits of the controversy any further, as the C.W.P.No.4140 of 2006 [2] same have been adequately addressed in the aforesaid petition, we would like to observe that this petition was filed prior in time to the petition filed by Madhucon Projects Limited. These petitions were in relation to K.M.P.Expressways, an expressway to be constructed. We rendered a judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.7162 of 2006 on 28.3.2008. On 9.4.2006, we had vacated the interim order granted in this petition, keeping in view the judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.7162 of 2006 and the fact that the controversy had been addressed and answered. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the order passed on 22.3.2006 only high-lighted one of the contentions of the petitioner and from the contents of the judgment in Madhucon Projects Ltd., he has to make a submission with regard to the observations made by this Court regarding the role of lead member, as well as the observations of the Court with regard to an amount of Rs.368 crores having been sunk in the project. We do not agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Order dated 22.3.2006 was very explicit. To our minds the controversy has been settled. The petitioner cannot be permitted to pick holes in the judgment rendered by us in a related petition, especially when the petitioner all throughout has been relying on the similarity of the controversy in Madhucon's case. As a matter of fact, it was on account of the order passed on 25.8.2006 that this petition was tagged with Civil Writ Petition No.7162 of 2006 and prior to this on 22.3.2006, this Court on noticing the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner had passed the following order:- “One of the main contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the subject-bid was submitted by the consortium, consisting of Madhucon Projects Ltd.; Apollo Enterprises Ltd. and D.S.Constructions Ltd., respondent No.2 has signed the concession agreement with a consortium, in which C.W.P.No.4140 of 2006 [3] Madhucon Projects Ltd. is not a member. The submission is that change in composition of the bidder, after the bid has been accepted, is not permitted in terms of the tender conditions. In view of the submission, let notice of motion issue to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not granted, returnable on 6.4.2006. Notice may be taken out dasti in addition to the ordinary process. We direct that award of subject-work shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.” Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the controversy having been answered in C.W.P.No.7162 of 2006 leaves no room for further deliberation in the present petition. Dismissed. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( MAHESH GROVER ) April 22, 2008. JUDGE RC