CWP No. 1123 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1123 of 2011 Date of decision:- 20.01.2011 Kap Utility Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Sh. Vivaswan Rampal, 1145-A, Sant Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar (Punjab). ......Petitioner Vs Government of Punjab through the Secretary (Technical Education), Chandigarh and another. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Satish Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J. (ORAL) The writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order contained in Annexure P7 letter dated 22.12.2010 by which the offer of the contract made to the writ petitioner has been cancelled. The relevant facts that could be gathered from the averments made in the writ petition and the enclosures thereto would indicate that by a letter dated 08.12.2010 issued by the second respondent an offer for the contract works in question was made to the writ petitioner who was required to intimate its acceptance of the same on or before 15.12.2010. The writ petitioner contends that it received the letter dated 08.12.2010 on 21.12.2010 and on the very next day it CWP No. 1123 of 2011 2 informed the respondent of its acceptance. However, by the impugned letter (Annexure P7) the said offer has been rejected on the ground that it had not been made within the stipulated date i.e. 15.12.2010. The writ petitioner admits that it received the letter dated 08.12.2010 on 21.12.2010. It was required to intimate its offer latest by 15.12.2010. The intimation sent by the writ petitioner of its acceptance is dated 15.12.2010. If the writ petitioner had received the offer on 21.12.2010 it is inconceivable as to how it could have accepted the same on 15.12.2010. The above facts would go to show that the writ petitioner had intentions other than bonafide in issuing its acceptance by showing the same to be dated 15.12.2010. The fundamental requirement for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, namely, that the litigant must come to the Court with clean hands has not been satisfied by the writ petitioner. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept this writ petition for any further hearing. Writ petition, therefore, is dismissed by refusing admission. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 20.01.2011 Amodh