C.W.P No. 10578 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 10578 of 2008 Date of decision : September 11, 2008 Joginder Singh, ...... Petitioner through Mr.Ashok Kumar Sama, Advocate v. State of Punjab & others, ...... Respondents through Mr.Peeyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to hold an inquiry into the allotment of tenders of transportation of wheat crop for the year 2008-09 from Focal Point Jalalabad and for a further direction to the said respondent not to release the payment to respondent No.5. The case set out in the petition is that the petitioner is a transporter who had offered his bid for the aforementioned work. The lowest tenderer could not carry out the work and, thus, his tender was cancelled. Thereafter, as per the petitioner, he was the next lower tenderer C.W.P No. 10578 of 2008 ::2:: and, as per policy dated 6.3.2008, was entitled to be offered the work but the same was allotted to respondent No.5 for extraneous considerations. In reply, it is pointed out that in fact after the default of the original tenderer, he was blacklisted and his earnest money as well as security amount were forfeited. With regard to the petitioner, it is mentioned that he was also a contractor for Moranwali center and that despite various letters the petitioner could not satisfactorily execute the contract. It was for this reason that the work for Jalalabad center was not awarded to the petitioner and, instead, fresh tenders were called for by 15.4.2008 in which the petitioner did not participate. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the award of contract to respondent No.5. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 11, 2008 'kk'