IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 15.11.2010 COCP No.2026 of 2010 (O&M) Tamana Nursury ...Petitioner Versus Satish Chandra ...Respondent COCP No.2027 of 2010 (O&M) Gulati Builders ...Petitioner Versus Satish Chandra ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of COCP Nos.2026 of 2010 and 2027 of 2010 arising out of an order passed by this Court on 28.05.2010. The petitioners have filed writ petitions before this Court seeking quashing of letter dated 23.11.2009, whereby tender allegedly granted to the petitioners for the work of landscaping and horticulture of Employee State Insurance Hospital, Amritsar, was cancelled. In the written statement, the Director, Health Services, Punjab, has stated that the Hospital Development Committee (HDC) is the only empowered Committee for approval to the acceptance of tenders and that the Branch Manager, ESI Corporation returned back the original bills with the objection that the works performed under ESI Hospital, Amritsar comes under special repair work and as per head-quarter instructions, such works need the sanction from State Medical Commissioner, ESI Corporation, Chandigarh. It has COCP No.2026 of 2010 (O&M) been further pointed out that serious irregularities have been committed by Dr. Jotinder Mandher, the then Medical Superintendent, in awarding tenders at her own level by misusing her authority. When the said writ petition came up for hearing before this Court, the Court found that the disputed question of assessment of value of the work cannot be gone into in writ petition and the petitioner has to take any other alternative remedy. However, the suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the matter be looked into by the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab in the first instance without prejudice to any other alternative remedy and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision so taken, it can take any other remedy. It was in view of the said statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners, a direction was issued to the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, to look into the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law within three months. The present contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioners alleging that the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab has not examined the claim of the petitioners in terms of the directions of this Court and, therefore, there is willful disobedience to the order passed by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find that any case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out. This Court has found that the disputed question of assessment of value of the work cannot be gone into in writ petition. In view of the said fact, the direction to the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, to look into the claim of the petitioners is more by way of a concession rather than any right. If the petitioners have any legal and subsisting claim, they have a right to 2 COCP No.2026 of 2010 (O&M) seek remedy from the appropriate Forum, but to assert that non-examination of the claim by the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, discloses contempt is not tenable. In view of the above, both the contempt petitions are dismissed. 15.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3