IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.13508 of 2009 Date of decision: 1.9.2009 M/s Deepak Kumar. -----Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation, Patiala. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ORDER: 1. This petition challenges opening of financial bids of tenderers who did not qualify in terms of tender conditions. 2. Case set out in the petition is that vide Tender Notice dated 29.7.2009, Annexure P-1, tenders were invited by the respondent for advertisement rights on 60 unipoles at Patiala for three years. Similarly, vide notice dated 30.7.2009, Annexure P- 2, tenders for advertisement rights in respect of 539 pole kiosks were invited. The petitioner gave its tender. The financial bids could be opened only if conditions of technical bids were fulfilled. Some of the parties who were not eligible as per the tender conditions were also considered and their financial bids were also taken into account, which amounted to be an illegality. Such a CWP No.13508 of 2009 decision was arbitrary and liable to be interfered with as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the parties who have been considered eligible for contract offered better deal as compared to the petitioner. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary jurisdiction and is not to be exercised mechanically. In absence of any malafides or prejudice, even if there is any technical breach, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not called for. 5. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 01, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 2