IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6550 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.7.2009 Ravinder Kumar. -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G.,Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Charanjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for respondent No.5. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 17.4.2009 and order dated 20.4.2009, by which contract awarded to the petitioner has been terminated. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of Tender Notice calling for appointment of Transportation and Labour and Cartage Contractors, for loading and unloading given by CWP No.6550 of 2009 respondent No.2, the petitioner submitted his bids and deposited a security of Rs.18,000/- each with respondents No.3 and 4, where the work was to be performed. However, the petitioner could not perform the work, as he was obstructed from doing so and without giving any notice, order of termination of contract was passed, which was arbitrary and malafide. 3. Replies have been filed. Respondent No.4, Marketing Federation (Markfed) sought to justify the order dated 17.4.2009, by submitting that the petitioner did not have any infrastructure to carry out the work and inspite of written notice, he failed to make any arrangement and the second lowest tenderer was allowed to execute the work at the same rate. Respondent No.2, PUNGRAIN, has also filed affidavit justifying the order dated 17.4.2009 on similar grounds. 4. In view of above, there are seriously disputed questions, which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the petitioner has not even represented to the concerned authorities, even after coming to know about the impugned orders. The petitioner has, thus, to be relegated to alternative remedies. 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 13, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 2