IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1629 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.8.2009 Kamal Dhawan. -----Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.3. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 27.2.2008, Annexure P-34, order dated 17.10.2008, Annexure P-48, Tender Notice dated 16.1.2009, Annexure P-58 and order dated 19.1.2009, Annexure P-53. 2. The grievance in the petition is that the petitioner was awarded a contract for advertisement for which agreement, Annexure P-57, dated 24.12.2008 was executed. The petitioner signed the said agreement under threat. The petitioner agreed to CWP No.1629 of 2009 the conditions laid down in the agreement, which are not reasonable. The agreement was signed on 24.12.2008 but the contract commences from 1.12.2008 and thus, the petitioner is required to pay for the period prior to the agreement also. Vide letter dated 27.2.2008, Annexure P-34, it has been stated that the Municipal Council, Sonepat, respondent No.3 was not responsible to remove all the sign boards in the city and that sign boards were to be removed by the petitioner himself. Vide letter dated 17.10.2008, it was intimated that till the agreement was executed, work if any done by the petitioner, will be his responsibility. Vide letter dated 19.1.2009, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was authorized to start work from 1.12.2009. Vide Tender Notice dated 16.1.2009, proposals have been invited from the interested parties for the construction of Bus Que Shelter, which was in violation of the contract. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, respondent No.2 opposed the submissions in the petition, by stating that inspite of being asked to do so, the petitioner failed to take steps for signing of the agreement and finally agreed to sign the agreement on 24.12.2008. He was bound by the terms to which he agreed. 4. In view of above, there are disputed questions of fact whether the agreement, which the petitioner signed, was of his own volition or under any influence and whether there was any breach of conditions of the agreement. This Court, under Article 2 CWP No.1629 of 2009 226 of the Constitution, is not an appropriate forum for raising such disputes. 5. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 04, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3