IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 6256 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 14.7.2009 Rattan Lal ......Petitioner Vs. Punjab State Department of Food Supply and others. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Ms. Pinky Bangarh, Advocate for Mr.Mandeep K.Sajjan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 5. Mr.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for respondent No.6. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 6.4.2009 cancelling the contract awarded to the petitioner and for allowing the petitioner to carry out the work. 2. In pursuance of tender notice for giving labour work for loading and unloading of goods and articles for the year 2009-10, the petitioner submitted his tender. The petitioner quoted rate of 57% below the scheduled rates and deposited a sum of Rs.39,000/-. On 30.3.2009, the tenders were opened and the petitioner was declared successful. He completed all the formalities and also deposited security of Rs.54,000/-. He also signed the agreement for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. However, he was not allowed to work and received a letter dated 6.4.2009 to the effect that the work allotted to him had been cancelled and allotted to respondent No.6. The bid of respondent No.6 was 20% above the scheduled rates. 3. On 27.4.2009, the following order was passed: C.W.P.No. 6256 of 2009 [2] “Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 6.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) vide which the tender allotted to the petitioner Rattan Lal has been unilaterally cancelled by the respondents without issuing any notice to the petitioner, as also, without affording him any opportunity of hearing to him. And that the tender has been allotted to respondent No.6 without allowing the petitioner to participate in any negotiating process. Notice of motion for 13.5.2009. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 6.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) shall remain stayed.” 4. In the reply filed by District Controller, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Ferozepur, on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the stand taken is that the rate of the petitioner being lower to the scheduled rates, was not economically viable and on that ground the tenders were recalled and the work was allotted to respondent No.6. 5. The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation apart from taking the stand that the offer of the petitioner was economically un-viable has stated that the petitioner never submitted his tender on 3.4.2009 and fresh tenders were called and respondent No.6 being a lowest tenderer, his tender was accepted. C.W.P.No. 6256 of 2009 [3] 6. There is nothing to show that any public notice was given or opportunity was given to any other competitor. 7. We have dealt with the same issue in another petition being C.W.P.No.6919 of 2009 ((Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others) decided today and held that allotment of work to the respondent by private negotiation and without giving opportunity to all eligible persons was illegal. For the same reasons, the impugned order dated 6.4.2009 cannot be sustained. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. It is, however, made clear that the work already executed by respondent No.6 or by anyone else till date, will not be effected. The respondents will be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 14, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No