IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17566 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.9.2010 Naresh Kumar Duggal and others ....Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Roshan Lal Batta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 23.9.2010, Annexure P-6, and also seeks a direction for opening of financial bid as per schedule on 27.9.2010. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of tender notice dated 27.8.2010 for side lining of rivers, the petitioners gave their bids. Before the bids could be finalized, letter dated 22.9.2010, Annexure P- 4, was written by the Nodal Officer alleging that there was possibility of arranged pooled tendering. On examination of the said letter by the Technical Advisor to CM, Punjab and Principal Secretary, impugned order was passed directing the allotment of works through E-tendering. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that cancellation of tender process will result in loss of public money spent in CWP No. 17566 of 2010 -2- the process and will also cause harassment to the bidders. There was no evidence of possibility of pooling. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. 6. Question whether there is possibility of pooling or not, is a question of fact to be decided by the competent authority on the basis of feed back available. The impugned order does refer to material taken into account, i.e. analysis and pattern of bids. There is no reason to reject the said basis. There is no allegation of malafides. In such circumstances, there is no case for interference with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 28, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE