IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4653 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.4.2011. Kullu Wool Spinning and Weaving Mills …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent No.2 & 3: Mr. J.R.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent No. 4: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of respondents No. 2 and 3 whereby fresh tenders were invited for running the Shawl counter in the Himachal Emporium, New Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 are running an emporium under the name and style of Himachal Emporium at Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi. In this emporium the respondents extend facilities of sale by allotting counters to various parties. These counters are allotted on year to year basis and on the basis of contract, which are entered into after inviting 2 tenders/quotations from various parties. For the year 2009-2010 the petitioner was allotted the said tender. The case of the petitioner is that as per the terms and condition No.12 the Corporation was under an obligation to extend the marketing facilities of the counter to the petitioner on consignment basis for two years by enhancing the minimum sale guarantee by 10% per year. The petitioner’s claim is that instead of inviting fresh tenders the Corporation should have extended the time to him on increase of 10% in minimum sale guarantee. 3. This contention cannot be accepted. Guidelines cannot replace the terms of the contract. The word “guidelines” itself indicates that these are measures which may guide the Corporation. They can never have the force of law or the terms of the contract and are not enforceable as such. 4. It would also be pertinent to mention that when fresh tenders are invited obviously there is competition and greater revenue is generated to the Corporation and to the State. All commercial organizations are run on the basis of making more profit and I see no reason why respondent No.2 Corporation should not also run like any other private commercial Corporation. The effort should always be to get more remuneration for the Corporation. These counters which are given in these prestigious emporia all over the country are great source of revenue for 3 businessmen and they seek counters in these emporia and pay handsome dividends to the Corporation. 5. The Corporation in its reply has also placed on record a decision annexure R-3 dated 11th March, 2010 whereby it has been decided that all these counters which were given on minimum sale guarantee basis no extension should be granted after March, 2010 and fresh tenders should be invited. This is a salutary decision and extension should not be given as a matter of right to any party working therein. The contention of Shri Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that this letter does not apply to his client since counter was awarded to him prior to 11.3.2010, is not acceptable since no vested right of the petitioner is taken away and all that has been stated is that in case of all the minimum sale guarantee counters given by the Corporation in different emporia for one year and whose term is expiring after 31st March, 2010, the Board decided that instead of giving extension by increasing the existing minimum sale guarantee fresh tenders be invited. 6. Shri Nimish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now again his client apprehends that the counter shall be awarded to the private respondent by increasing minimum sale guarantee by 10%. It is made clear that this cannot be done in view of the specific stand of the Corporation in the present case that in all such cases 4 fresh tenders have to be invited. The tender in respect of respondent No.4 is to expire in the month of August, 2011. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of only with a direction that the Corporation on expiry of the present agreement shall invite fresh tenders for award of the Shawl counters and the petitioner and respondent No.4 shall both be eligible to participate in the same. It is made clear that extension shall not be given to respondent No.4 only by increasing the minimum sale guarantee. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 20th April, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.