3, re s-28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(C) 227112010 & cM No. 457212010 and cM No. 632212010 SUNIL KUI\4AR ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. GoYal, Advocate. VETSUS MEDICAL SUPRINTENDENT DDU HOSPITAL AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: IW. N. Waziri, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 31.0s.2010 It appears from the reply filed by the Respondents that although the petitioner was awarded the contract on the basis of his bid being the highest i.e Rs. 23,36,7211-,he only paid a sum of Rs. 5,84,180/- being the 25Yo of the bid amount. As per the terms and conditions, the balance 75% of the bid amount i.e Rs. 17,52,54Il- was to be deposited within one month of the allotment of the tender i.e 21" March 2010. It appears that the Petitioner presented a cheque for Rs. I7,52,5471' with the condition that the cheque may not be presented in the Bank without his consent. t L -a 2. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 1, 3. It is submitted by the Respondent that in view of the above conditional payment, the cheque could not be presented and since payment was not made by the stipulated time, the contoact was terminated. 4. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner found that the site was encroached upon and there was unauthorized parking of a vehicles and so the payment was not made 5. It was for the Petitioner to have inspected the site before bidding for the parking contract. In any event,. if the Petitioner is aggrieved by any breach of the terms of the confiact, he should take appropriate remedies as are available to him in law. The reliefs sought for by the Petitioner cannot be granted in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The Petition is dismissed. Applications stand dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 3L, 2oL0 tsst I