IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.11796 of 2010 Date of decision: 7.7.2010 Sawtantar Dev Bali & another. -----Petitioners. Vs. State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of conditions No.(i) and (v) of the Tender Notice, Annexure P-3, dated 18.6.2010 and similar conditions in other tenders. The said conditions are as under:- “1. Tenders will be entertained with E/Money in shape of DAC/Demand Draft. Moreover, Bank solvency certificate worth Rs.40.00 lac at Sr.No.1, Rs.25.00 lacs at Sr. No.2 and 10.00 lacs at Sr. No.3 should also be attached with the tender. xx xx xx xx xx 5. Turn over for providing, fixing/supply of M.S. pipes worth Rs.200.00 lacs at Sr. No.1, 100.00 lacs at Sr. No.2 and 20.00 lacs at Sr. No.3 respectively of any two years for the last five years should be attached.” 2. The tender is for fixing of M.S. pipe including earth works of excavation of pipe line in trenches and pits upto 1.5 mtr. depth in all respect in ordinary gravel soil involving pick work aria semi conglomerate of pick jumper works anchoring and sporting CWP No.11796 of 2010 with concretes blocks of suitable size etc. involiving cost of Rs.214.45 lacs. 3. Case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are Class 1A contractors but in view of the said conditions, they will not be able to compete and this will create monopoly for the big contractors. 4. It is well settled that the conditions of the tender cannot be questioned unless the same are irrational. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 and Global Energy Ltd. v. Adani Exports Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 2653. We are unable to hold that the conditions are irrelevant having regard to cost of the work. The administrator is entitled to free play in joints in laying down the tender conditions, and the same cannot be interfered except on the ground of being malafide or arbitrary. 5. We are, thus, unable to interfere. It is, however, made clear that this order will not debar for the petitioners from putting forward their grievance before the concerned authority, which may look into the same in accordance with law. 6. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 07, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2