IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.253 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.7.2009 Dhan Nirankar Social Welfare Society & another. -----Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the appellants. ----- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by dismissal of their writ petition, challenging cancellation of Request for Proposal (RFP) process. 2. Vide Public Notice dated 3.6.2003, Punjab Infrastructure Development Board and Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training invited Expression of Interest for development and running of 12 Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs). Late Harkrishan Lal father of appellant No.2, proprietor of Harkrishan Theatre, submitted expression of interest for running of ITI at Jalalabad. He also gave an undertaking to form a LPA No.253 of 2008 society, as required. Accordingly, appellant No.1 Society was registered on 18.7.2003. Bank guarantee was also given. On 18.4.2004, Harkrishan Lal died. However, the bank guarantee was extended. The issue, however, remained pending and vide letter dated 11.2.2005, Annexure P-21, respondent No.2 informed the appellants that decision had been taken to cancel the RFP process in respect of ITI Jalalabad. The original FDRs/Bank guarantees were returned. The appellants filed writ petition, on the ground that the decision of respondent No.2 was arbitrary. The stand of respondent No.2 in the written statement was to the effect that it had absolute discretion to reject the proposal under Clause 5.14 of the Notice conditions. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the appellants were never the applicants in the Expression of Interest. Late Harkrishan Lal had applied individually, though as proprietor of Harkrishan Theatre. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even if the respondent No.2 had absolute right in the matter, its exercise by a public authority had to be on some rational basis. In the reply filed or in the impugned order, no rationale has been shown. 6. Even though we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that Harkrishan Lal who had made the application having died, cancellation of 2 LPA No.253 of 2008 RFP may be justified on that ground, the fact remains that this was not the objection of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 ought to inform the appellants reasons for cancellation of RFP. 7. We, accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, direct that respondent No.2 may inform the appellants reasons for its decision for cancelling the RFP process within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 8. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 21, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) ashwani JUDGE 3