IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20183 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.11.2010 Jai Bhagwan Contrator …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a letter dated 18.10.2010 (P6), vide which, work tender was ordered to be re- invited. Further challenge has been made to a notice (P7), re-inviting the tender. Civil Writ Petition No.20183 of 2010 Record reveals that the respondents invited sealed tenders from the eligible contractors for construction and strengthening of Dadri Bond Road. It is apparent from the records that for that purpose, notice inviting tenders (P1), was issued, in response to which, the petitioner alone submitted his tender. As per terms and conditions of the notice, mentioned above, his bid was found technically feasible and thereafter, on getting permission from the Head Office, financial bid was opened. It appears that rates quoted by the petitioner were on the higher side. Taking note of the same, vide letter dated 6.11.2009, the Head Office, advised the Superintending Engineer, B&R Branch to re-invite the tenders. At this stage, the present writ petition has been filed. It is apparent from the records that after opening the financial bid of the petitioner, no offer was made to him, to execute the work. Clause 30.1 of the notice inviting tenders reads thus:- “30.1 Notwithstanding Clause 29 above, the Employer reserves the right to accept or reject any Bid, and to cancel the bidding process and reject all bids, at any time prior to the award of Contract, without thereby incurring any liability to the affected Bidder or bidders or any obligation to inform the affected Bidder or bidders of the grounds for the Employer’s action.” It is grievance of the petitioner that his financial bid was opened after getting permission from the Head Office, in view of that there was no justification to re-invite the tender. It is a case of single tender. We have seen the instructions in that regard, which were circulated vide letter dated 6.11.2009. Relevant portion reads thus:- 2 Civil Writ Petition No.20183 of 2010 “Tendering process is intended to be competitive and transparent and, therefore, the actions and instructions relating to the process should be designed to achieve the desired objectives. There are many occasions when single tender is received in response to advertisement to various works through press, website and letters to contractors/ agencies. The instances of single tender indicate lack of competitiveness given that sufficient publicity has been made. Therefore, the issue has been debated quite a No. of times as to whether single tenders should be opened or not. Now it has been decided that single tender would not be opened at first instance and shall be recalled. In case of urgent works, single tender can be opened with prior approval from Head Office giving proper justification and explanation. If single tender is received even after recall and adequate publicity, the same can be opened after recording a certificate by the tender opening authority that sufficient publicity was made through press, website and sending letters to contractors/ agencies of appropriate class including those having plants in a radius of 50 km.” The instructions clearly envisage that in case of emergency only, the work can be given through a single tender. In the present case, notice was issued for construction and strengthening of a road, which, we are of the opinion, was not of emergent nature. Action taken is perfectly justified. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 3 Civil Writ Petition No.20183 of 2010 12.11.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4