Civil Writ Petition No.1901 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision:-18.2.2009 Traffic Media (India) Pvt. Limited ---Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr.Vivek Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.I.S.Sidhu, Advocate and Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana for respondent No.3. Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.4. J.S.KHEHAR, J. (ORAL) Replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3 has been handed over to us in Court today. Copy thereof has also been furnished to the learned counsel for respondent No.3. The same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. A separate replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.4 has also been handed over to us in Court today. Copy thereof has also been furnished to the learned counsel for respondent No.4. The same is also taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. During the course of hearing, it emerged that there were Civil Writ Petition No.1901 of 2009 2 disputed questions of fact. According to learned counsel representing the respondents, the tender submitted by the petitioner was defective for three reasons. These defects have been noticed in paragraph 3 of the preliminary submissions contained in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3. In order to demonstrate their fairness to this Court, learned counsel for respondent No.3, i.e. Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana stated that the Finance and Contract Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana had taken a decision not to accept any bid which was less than the bid tendered by the petitioner, namely Rs.7.2 crores. Despite the fact that the disputed questions of fact were involved in the controversy raised by the petitioner, yet having examined the averments made in the instant writ petition as also in the two replications filed on behalf of the petitioner, we are of the view that there was a “possibility” that the assertions made on behalf of the petitioner ”might” be truthful. It is therefore, that we enquired from the respondents particulars of the highest bid, out of valid tenders submitted by the interested parties on 23.1.2009. We were informed that the highest bid was made by respondent No.4, who had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5 crores. We enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner would be interested in hiking its bid amount, during the process of negotiations, if he was allowed to participate in the same. In response to our query, learned counsel for the petitioner having obtained instructions told us, that the petitioner would comfortably enhance the bid amount to Rs.7.6 crores, but with some difficulty he was willing to enhance it even to Rs.8 crores, but not beyond that. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, on instructions received, Civil Writ Petition No.1901 of 2009 3 states that respondent No.4 is ready and willing to hike the bid amount depicted in the tender submitted by respondent No.4 to Rs.8.05 crores (as respondent No.3 i.e. Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana had taken a decision not to accept the bid less than the bid of the petitioner in his tender namely Rs.7.2 crores). This offer made by respondent No.4 to us in Court will be deemed to be binding on respondent No.4, specially because the instant petition is being disposed of on the basis of the undertaking given by respondent No.4. In case respondent No.4 backs out from the amount mentioned here-in-above namely Rs.8.05 crores, his earnest money shall stand forfeited. In view of the factual position noticed here-in-above, we are satisfied and have arrived at a conclusion, that even if the tender documents submitted by the petitioner were valid, the petitioner would not have been favoured with the contract in question as he would not have been the highest bidder even if an opportunity was available to him to compete for the contract. As such, we are satisfied that no further action is called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the clear understanding that respondent No.4 has enhanced his bid amount to Rs.8.05 crores. The bid of respondent No.4 and others who participate in the process of negotiations (if any) will be disposed of in accordance with law. Obviously, if no other tenderer makes an offer in excess of Rs.8.05 crores, it will be open to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana to accept the bid of respondent No.4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 states that it be clarified (in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 5.2.2009) that it will be Civil Writ Petition No.1901 of 2009 4 open to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana to finalize the matter in view of the fact that the Finance and Contract Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana is scheduled to meet on 20.2.2009. Clarification sought is the natural conclusion of the discussion noticed here-in-above, and is accordingly accorded. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (Nawab Singh) 18.2.2009 Judge AS