CWP No. 17169 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No.17169 of 2007 Date of Decision: 26.09.2008 M/s Parkash Cable Industries ...... Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondent. **** Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner-firm has challenged the order dated 2.06.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the respondent whereby it was blacklisted. The brief facts necessary to be recorded are that the respondent had issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 29.8.20005 for LT PVC Cable in which it was also mentioned that the tender would remain valid for 120 days from the date of opening which in the present case was 15.9.2005. The petitioner tendered for the same and was found to be the lowest tenderer. As CWP No. 17169 of 2007 2 per the petitioner its tender was in the nature of an offer which, according to the conditions of the NIT was valid only for 120 days i.e. up to 15.1.2006. However, the purchase order was issued by the respondent only on 28.4.2006 in response to which the petitioner represented that there was a huge price variation in the interregnum and that it would be willing to supply the Cables only after factoring in the same. It is averred that the respondent could not hold the petitioner to its offer and the order of blacklisting arising out of the inability of the petitioner to supply the material at the tendered rates is invalid. In fact, the petitioner also sent a legal notice-cum-representation dated 15.7.2007 to the respondent for withdrawing the said order. In reply the respondent has not disputed the above said notice but asserts that letter of intent dated 27.1.2006 was issued to the petitioner intimating it about the booking of the order. This assertion is countered by the fact that a letter of intent could not be considered as an unequivocal acceptance of the offer made by the petitioner which could only be done, and was in fact so done by the issuance of the purchase order. It is averred that the delay of three more months in the issuance of the purchase order could not visit the petitioner with financial prejudice and, if at all the respondent insisted on buying the Cables it was only fair that it factored in the rise of price which supervened due to delay on its part. After careful consideration of the matter we feel that this petition deserves to succeed. It cannot be disputed that in the absence of the purchase order no concluded contract had come into being between the parties. In the circumstances the order of blacklisting which arose out of the CWP No. 17169 of 2007 3 said alleged breach by the petitioner, cannot be sustained. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 2.06.2007 (Annexure P-10) is hereby quashed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 26, 2008 sunita