IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1642 of 2009 Date of decision: 3.2.2009 OST Electronics Limited. -----Petitioner Vs. HARTRON and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks a mandamus for award of contract to the petitioner for supply and installation of networking at Chandigarh Judicial Academy, on the ground that bid of the petitioner was the lowest and it was not given opportunity in the post-tender negotiations to offer rate lower to that offered by respondent No.2. 2. Case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited advertised on 5.12.2008 for awarding of contract for supply and installation of networking at Chandigarh Judicial Academy. Technical bids were opened on 17.12.2008 and commercial bids were opened on C.W.P. No.1642 of 2009 16.1.2009. The bid of the petitioner was found to be lowest being of Rs.78.28 lacs as against the bid of respondent No.2 of Rs.105.35 lacs. There were, however, post-tender negotiations, wherein apart from the petitioner, respondent No.2 was also invited. The petitioner, being L-1, alone should have been called for post tender negotiations. Respondent No.2 reduced his bid by 31.55 lacs, contrary to the undertaking to give lowest bid in the first instance. Respondent No.2, thus, gave the bid of Rs.73.80 lacs, which has been accepted. The petitioner made a representation on the same day, pointing out that the petitioner was doing business for the last 7-8 years and that the petitioner being L-1 should have alone been called for negotiations. Allowing respondent No.2 to submit fresh offer, was not fair. 3. A perusal of representation of the petitioner as well as writ petition shows that the petitioner has not offered, even in post-tender negotiations or thereafter, lower amount than the amount for which respondent No.2 has been awarded the contract. 4. Though as per guidelines relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, post-tender negotiations should be avoided, except in exceptional circumstances even with L-1, in absence of any material to show malafides, post-tender negotiations cannot per se be held to be illegal. The petitioners also participated in the said negotiation but did not offer lower bid. 5. It is well settled that in the matter of award of contract, free play in the joints has to be allowed and Court cannot substitute its opinion unless impugned action is illegal, irrational or suffers from 2 C.W.P. No.1642 of 2009 procedural irregularities. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellulor v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 393. 6. Having regard to the fact that the bid of respondent No.2 is substantially lower to the offer of the petitioner and no illegality has been shown, we do not find any ground to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. The petition is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 03, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 3