1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.2630 of 2008 Date of decision 8.12.2008 Lok Raj Petitioner Vs. State of HP and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the Petitioner: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG and Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. AG. Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. Respondent got published a notice inviting tenders for various items of works mentioned in the advertisement. Para 2 of the notice reads that application for obtaining tender would be accompanied, inter alia, by earnest money in the shape of National Saving Certificate/time deposit account/FDR in any Nationalized Bank in Himachal Pradesh. Writ petitioner submitted an application without 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2 attaching any National Saving Certificate/time deposit account/FDR etc., representing the earnest money. His application was rejected on this score. Last date for purchasing the tenders was 28.11.2008 and the time upto which the tenders could be purchased was 1.00 PM. Petitioner, after rejection of his application, submitted FDRs representing the earnest money. It was at 4.PM. Since the FDRs were submitted after 1 PM, the same were not accepted. The same day, writ petitioner made representations to the Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer. It is also the allegation of the writ petitioner that respondents had already made up its mind to award works to two particular contractors. The allegation appears in the writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. First submission made by the learned counsel is that papers regarding earnest money were not required to be submitted alongwith application for obtaining the form, but they were required to be submitted along with tender form. We see no merit in the submission, because it is very plain and clear from an overall reading of para-2 of the notice that the application for obtaining tenders was to be accompanied by earnest money, in the shape of National Saving Certificate/time deposit account/FDR. According to him, earnest money was required to be submitted with the application for obtaining tender and not for obtaining tender form. When questioned as to what he meant application for obtaining tender, he stated that it meant application for seeking award of work, the stage for which was to come after submission of 3 tender. When further questioned, he conceded that no application is required to be made after tender form is submitted. This itself shows that his argument is misconceived. Next submission that work has been awarded to two other contractors to show favour to them, becomes irrelevant when the petitioner was not a participant in the bid because he had not obtained tender form within time nor had he submitted any tender. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of main petition, pending applications are also disposed of. ( R. B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 8th December, 2008(sl)