IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.12400 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.7.2010 M/s Anshul Tours & Travells & others. -----Petitioner. Vs. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter of intent dated 18.6.2010, alleged to have been issued to respondent No.4 for hiring and operation of diesel driven vehicles by the Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. 2. Case of the petitioners is that in pursuance of tender inquiry, Annexure P-1, the petitioners were the lowest bidders, but by negotiation, letter of intent was issued to the second lowest bidder at Rs.44,000/- per month per vehicle. In negotiation, the petitioners had agreed to reduce the rate to Rs.45,100/- per month per vehicle but the rate quoted by respondent No.4 not being known to the petitioners, the petitioners were denied opportunity of offering still lower rate. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Only contention which has been put forward is that the petitioners had a prior right to be confronted with the rate CWP No.12400 of 2010 offered by respondent No.4 before letter of intent could be issued to respondent No.4. 5. We are unable to accept this submission. It is not disputed that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the negotiation and in para 6 of the petition, the case of the petitioners themselves is that they did not agree to reduce the rate below 45,100/-. In such circumstances, if the contract has been awarded to respondent No.4 at a lower rate, it cannot be held that the same is illegal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon order of this Court dated 17.2.2010 in CWP No.490 of 2010 M/s Goyal Industries v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation and others. The said order has been passed in the facts and circumstances of that case and no principle of law has been laid down that the lowest tenderer must be confronted with the rates offered by other tenderers, particularly when the lowest tenderer refuses to reduce the rate below a particular amount. 8. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 16, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2