IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 8787 of 2009 (O& M) Date of decision: 31.7.2009 The Shaheed Udham Singh Coop.Transport Society Limited, Moonak. ......Petitioner Vs. Managing Director, PUNGRAIN and others. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Charanjit Singh Bakshi, Advocate for PUNGRAIN. Mr.Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This petition challenges award of work of transporation of grain to respondent No.4. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of tender notice Annexure P-1, the petitioner gave its bid. Though the bid of the petitioner was lowest, the work was allotted to respondent No.4. The petitioner made a complaint, on which no action was taken. Respondent No.4 was not eligible but the work was allotted to him on account of his connivance with the official respondents. 3. In response to the notice, reply has been filed by the District Manager, PUNGRAIN stating that respondent No.4 was eligible and rate quoted by him was the lowest. There was no question of any connivance. The rate quoted by the petitioner being higher, the work was not allotted to C.W.P.No. 8787 of 2009 -2- the petitioner on that account. 4. In view of the above, disputed questions raised by the petitioner that the rate quoted by respondent No.4 was higher than that of the petitioner, cannot be gone into in summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner wishes to raise this issue before any other forum, this order will not stand in its way. 5. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 31, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No C.W.P.No. 8787 of 2009 -3- C.W.P.No. 8787 of 2009 -4-