CWP No.15779 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15779 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.11.2010 **** Madan Lal Rana . . . . Petitioner VS. Union of India and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. Sushma Verma, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the Notice and Corrigendum dated 22.03.2010 (Annexure P3 & P4) inviting fresh bids for appointment of the Vending Contractor at Ludhiana Railway Station, Ludhiana, as also the order dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure P2) whereby Vend No.113 on Platform No.2 of the above-stated Railway Station has been allotted to M/s. Doon Caterers – respondent No.3. (2). The primary contention of the petitioner is that the contract was awarded to respondent No.3 in a clandestine manner without any intimation to the petitioner who has been working as the vending contractor for more than 27 years. CWP No.15779 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). The information sought on behalf of the petitioner under the RTI Act, which has been placed on record (Annexure P9), reveals that the Tenders were published in various newspapers i.e. Times of India (all editions); Dainik Jagaran (all editions), The Tribune (English, Hindi & Punjabi), Ajit (Punjabi), Punjab Kesari (Hindi) and the same have been dully supplied to the petitioner. The above-stated tender notice was also uploaded on the website of the Corporation. Pursuant to these notices three bidders participated and respondent No.3 being the highest bidder, has been allotted Stall No.113 at Ludhiana Railway Station. The information given vide memo dated 15.06.2010 (Annexure P7) further reveals that the petitioner has “voluntarily handed over the possession of the stall to the new licensee on 30.08.08 and new licensee M/s. Doon Caterers commissioned modular stall and started its operation w.e.f. 01.10.08.” (4). In the light of the above-stated categoric stand taken by the respondents in their communications which could not be rebutted during the course of hearing, it cannot be said that the Stall has been allotted to respondent NO.3 without giving an opportunity to bid to the petitioner or other competitors. CWP No.15779 of 2010.doc - 3 – (5). No interference with the impugned action is, therefore, called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (6). Faced with this, it is urged that the license fee deposited by respondent NO.3 is upto 30th November, 2010 only. In my considered view, it is not desirable or expedient to express any views as to whether the contract of respondent No.3 would expire or re-validated beyond 30.11.2010 as the respondents have not been heard at this preliminary stage. Suffice it to observe that in the event of expiry of the contract period, there appears to be no reason for the respondents not to give any wide publicity to invite fresh tenders and in that event the petitioner too shall be entitled to compete along with others subject to his eligibility. (7). With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. (8). Dasti . 25.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE