IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.17265 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.2.2010 Jaspal Singh. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No.2. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks a direction for quashing the contract awarded to the private respondents by the Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation (PUNGRAIN), respondent No.2. 2. Case set out in the petition is that tenders were invited for procurement of foodgrains. Such contracts were awarded to the private respondents even though they had not submitted the tenders by e-mail, as required. By fabrication, their names were incorporated. The respondent No.2 has filed its reply stating as under:- “3........However, after the copy of the writ petition was supplied by the counsel for the petitioner to the CWP No.17265 of 2009 counsel for the answering respondent department on 29.1.2010, the allegations leveled by the petitioner will now be looked into by a Committee which is being formulated under the Chairmanship of Director, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Punjab who would look into the lapses which have taken place and further to formulate a mechanism to ensure that if any such lapse has taken place, the same does not perpetuate in future by the Field Staff.” 3. Respondent No.2 will be at liberty to look into the matter, as proposed, but since the said action is intended to be for future, learned counsel for the petitioner says that even the award of contracts to private respondents in the past, need to be looked into. 4. We are of the view that it will be in the interest of justice that the allegations made in the petition are looked into by respondent No.1, Secretary, Department of Food Supplies, Punjab and a decision taken within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a result of above inquiry, if any further action is required to be taken, respondent No.1 will be at liberty to do so. 5. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 05, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2