CWP No. 13497 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13497 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.9.2010 M/s. Marshal Engineers ....Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks a direction to the respondents to consider tender of the petitioner which was wrongly rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not furnish proof of ownership of Batch Mixing Plant and Concrete Pump, as required in terms of tender notice. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of tender notice dated 17.6.2010 for construction of D.R. Bridge, the petitioner submitted its tender along with all documents but respondent No.3-Executive Engineer, Jhajjar did not open the tender of the petitioner thereby causing huge loss to the public exchequer by wrongly ignoring the bid of the petitioner which could be lowest. 3. Respondent No.3 in reply filed on behalf of all the CWP No. 13497 of 2010 -2- respondents denies the allegation that the petitioner was eligible and that its tender was wrongly ignored. 4. We are of the view that when allegations have been made against respondent No.3, it would have been desirable that affidavit was filed in this Court by some higher officer after looking into the matter when such higher officers have been impleaded as party. Be that as it may, the issue raised in the petition whether the tender of the petitioner contained relevant documents or not is a disputed question of fact, which is not normally gone into in writ proceedings. Even so, having regard to the nature of the allegations made and possible loss of revenue to the State, it is a case which ought to be looked into at some higher level of the Government. 5. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, Panchkula to look into the matter and if it is found that the petitioner's tender was wrongly ignored and there was loss to public revenue, he may take such further remedial action as may be deemed necessary, including cancellation of contract, after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected party. This process may be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 8, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE