CWP No. 15460 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15460 of 2010 Date of Decision: 9.9.2010 Kheri Manian Co-operative Labour & Construction Society Ltd. and another ....Petitioners. Versus Municipal Council Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of action of the respondents in denying consideration to the petitioners to participate in tender process in pursuance of tender notice dated 4.8.2010, Annexure P-3. It is stated that the petitioners were not being considered on account of instructions of the Registrar, Annexure P-7, to the effect that the Societies of the same District where the work falls only can get the work. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of judgment of this Court dated 27.5.2010 in CWP No. 8326 of 2010 (The Haripura Co-op. L&C Society and others v. State of Punjab and others, the condition restricting right to participate in tender process only to Cooperative Societies of a District where the work is to be executed is legally impermissible. In the said case, referring to identical instructions, this Court observed:- “We are of the opinion that impugned instruction CWP No. 15460 of 2010 -2- dated 4.5.2010 is not a law. Basis of the instruction has not been disclosed. At the first sight, instruction seems to be unjustified and arbitrary. We are of the opinion that pursuant to instructions dated 4.5.2010, petitioners-societies cannot be debarred from participating in tender process throughout the State, if they fulfil other eligibility and qualifications prescribed for the tender.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to distinguish the above judgment of this Court. 4. Accordingly, we allow this petition and hold that the petitioners could not be debarred from participating in the tender process only on the ground that they were not from same district where the work was to be done. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the works had already been allotted on August 27, 2010 and August 30, 2010 before the issuance of notice in the writ petition. 6. In view of the development that the works have already been allotted and the fact that the works in question are not of substantial value, we do not consider it appropriate to disturb the works already allotted. 7. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 9, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE