CWP No. 490 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 490 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.02.2010 M/s. Goyal Industries ....Petitioner Versus Haryana Warehousing Corporation and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging allotment of tender in favour of respondent No.3 by the Corporation – respondent No.1 vide Annexures P-4 and P-6. Further the petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus commanding respondent No.1 to grant tender/contract in favour of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondents No.1 and 2 CWP No. 490 of 2010 2 issued an advertisement and invited tenders for sale of bajra lying in State Warehousing situated at Rewari and Kanina with the stipulation that tender would be opened on 1.1.2010 at 3.30 PM in the presence of the parties who may wish to be present. 3. The petitioner being eligible offered to purchase bajra and quoted Rs.915/- per quintal for lot No.1 and 3. Beside the petitioner, four other bidders also submitted their bids. Tenders were opened on 1.1.2010 for sale of bajra in which five firms appeared and quoted their rates for bajra. 4. After opening the rates, respondents No.1 and 2 decided to hold open negotiations with the bidders in the office on 2.1.2010 with floor price of 960/- per quintal. The petitioner appeared on 2.1.2010 and detailed negotiations were held between the respondents and the bidders. During negotiations, the petitioner offered Rs.960/- per quintal for lot No.1 and 3 whereas M/s. Arya Varat Traders offered the rate of Rs.960/- per quintal for lot No.3. Respondent No.3 did not participate in the negotiation conveyed on 2.1.2010. Respondent No.2 on 2.1.2010 itself communicated the petitioner that rates given by it were accepted and accordingly assured the petitioner that it would be issued acceptance letter. However, tender was not allotted to the petitioner for the reasons that respondents No.1 and 2 negotiated with respondent No.3 at the rate of Rs.965/- per quintal for all the three lots and asked respondent No.3 if it is ready to accept the offer at the rate of Rs.965/- per quintal, then the same would be allotted to respondent No.3. However, no such offer was made to the petitioner. Otherwise, the petitioner would have participated in the negotiation. This action of respondents No.1 and 2 to grant tender in favour of respondent CWP No. 490 of 2010 3 No.3 by way of private negotiation without calling the petitioner is challenged by way of present writ petition. 5. When the petition came up for hearing, at the time of motion hearing stage, this Court vide order dated 13.1.2010 stayed further action in pursuance to Annexure P-6. However, this Court observed that this stay order shall not debar respondents No.1 and 2 from taking fresh decision in accordance with law subject to further orders. Thereafter, a civil miscellaneous application was filed by respondents No.1 and 2. The case was taken up on 20.1.2010. This Court passed following order on 20.1.2010:- “In view of liberty to the effect that fresh decision could be taken in accordance with law after giving opportunity to all concerned parties, we do not find any ground to modify order of stay granted on 13.1.2010. To come up on the date fixed.” 6. Pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, further negotiations were held and all the bidders were invited for negotiation by respondents No.1 and 2 on 23.1.2010 in the corporate office of the Haryana warehousing Corporation at Panchkula. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not participate in the negotiations and ultimately again tender was allotted in favour of respondent No.3 at the rate of Rs.967/- per quintal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the matter was subjudice before this Court, hence petitioner did not participate in the negotiation held on 23.1.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner CWP No. 490 of 2010 4 vehemently argued that there was no need to participate in the second negotiation and in fact the tender ought to have been allotted to the petitioner as the petitioner's rates were found initially highest. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that first negotiation with respondent No.3 was without inviting petitioner and second negotiation held on 23.1.2010 is illegal, outcome of the arbitrary and malafide exercise and was subject to decision in the writ petition, hence there was no need for the petitioner to participate in it. 10. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. As observed hereinabove, while issuing notice of motion on 13.1.2010, this Court directed respondents No.1 and 2 to take fresh decision in accordance with law subject to the further orders. Thereafter, on 20.1.2010, again this Court clarified that fresh decision could be taken in accordance with law after giving opportunity to all the concerned parties. Further action in pursuance of Annexure P-6 for grant of tender in favour of respondent No.3 was stayed. Once this Court granted liberty to respondents No.1 and 2 to act afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity to all the concerned parties, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to participate in the second negotiation. The petitioner himself opted not to participate despite being invited by respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner cannot take benefit of its own wrong. In view of the above, we find that the present writ petition is nothing except the misuse of the process of law. At the first time, the petitioner is complaining private negotiation with respondent No.3. When this Court asked respondents No.1 and 2 to proceed afresh after giving opportunity to all concerned, meaning thereby fresh negotiation with all the CWP No. 490 of 2010 5 bidders then it was incumbent on the petitioner to participate in the second negotiation which undisputedly he did not. 11. In view of the above the instant writ petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Committee, at Chandigarh, within four weeks from today. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 17.02.2010 sk.