IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10838 of 2010 Date of Decision: 6.7.2010 Ankush Kapoor ....Petitioner. Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks a direction against allotment of tender and giving possession for opening and running Snack Bar Opposite Emergency, Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. 2. In pursuance of tender notice dated 30.1.2010 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner submitted his tender but the price bid of the petitioner was not considered though it was the highest. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court vide CWP No. 7512 of 2010 and order dated 28.4.2010 (Annexure P-9) was passed directing respondent No.4 therein to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 21.4.2010 in accordance with law. Vide impugned order dated 21.5.2010 (Annexure P-11) the representation was rejected holding that the bank guarantee CWP No. 10838 of 2010 -2- had not been furnished by the petitioner and which rendered him to be ineligible. 3. According to the learned counsel, the price bid of the petitioner was wrongly not considered on the condition that the bank guarantee had not been submitted. The petitioner having duly obtained the bank guarantee dated 15.2.2010 from Syndicate Bank, there could be no question of his not submitting the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the order of this Court in CWP No. 3977 of 2007 (Aruna Talwar v. Chandigarh Administration and others) dated 28.9.2007 allowing inter-se bidding in such a situation. 4. We are unable to accept the submissions. 5. Even though, Annexure P-4 shows that the bank guarantee was got prepared by the petitioner in the name of the Director Principal, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh- respondent, the fact remains that the allotment of work has already taken place more than one month ago. Correctness of finding that bank guarantee was not furnished, though open to question, is a disputed question of fact. In absence of allegation of malafides or loss to public interest, we refrain from interfering. As regards order of this Court in Aruna Talwar, supra, the same having been passed in facts and circumstances, is not a precedent of universal application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that the respondent be directed to return the bank guarantee. Since the stand of the respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that no bank guarantee was submitted along with the tender form, there is no occasion for such a direction. Moreover, bank guarantee was to be CWP No. 10838 of 2010 -3- operative only if tender was allotted to the petitioner in absence of which the same is inoperative. 7. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 6, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE