IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.18404 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.10.2010 Swami Shivananda Memorial Institute of Fine Arts & Crafts. -----Petitioner. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Ms. Nandita Rao, Advocate and Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks direction to the Education Department of Chandigarh Administration to withdraw Tender Notice dated 15.9.2010 to run kitchen at a Government school and allow the petitioner to continue to run the same till June 30, 2011. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in accordance with the scheme for Mid Day Meals in primary schools, the petitioner was allowed to use space in Government School for supplying the Mid Day Meals vide letter dated 12.6.2008. The supply of Mid Day Meals started from 1.7.2008. The said letter stipulated that CWP No.18404 of 2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) containing terms and conditions was required to be signed as per draft annexed to the letter. Though the MoU was never signed, the petitioner employed 45 women as Self-help Group and started supply of meals at rate orally settled. Under the draft agreement, the contract was to be for three years upto June, 2011, but before the expiry of the said period, the impugned Tender Notice has been issued. According to the petitioner, the issuance of Tender Notice amounted to termination of arrangement under which the petitioner were supplying the meals for the last more than two years. The petitioner made representation dated 14.9.2010, seeking resolution of pending disputes and stating the rate of meal fixed by the Administration was not acceptable to it. Vide letter dated 1.10.2010, proposal of the petitioner for increasing the rate of Rs.3.33 per meal to Rs.4.80 per meal was rejected. Thereafter, impugned tender notice has been issued. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is undisputed that no MoU was signed between the parties nor any rate was settled for any particular period. There is unsettled dispute as to rate at which food is to be supplied. In such circumstances, working of the petitioner was adhoc under oral understanding and not for any particular period. Duration of working proposed as per draft MoU was never finalised. Thus, no direction can be issued to allow the petitioner to continue to work for three years or to direct withdrawal of impugned tender. 2 CWP No.18404 of 2010 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 11, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3