CWP No.7360 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 08.04.2011 M/s. Hello Communication Centre, NIT, Faridabad. Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad and others. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. ML Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Deepender Ahlawat, Advocate. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner has challenged letter dated 21.04.2010 (Annxure P-9) whereby the job work contract for preparation of Smart Card Shape Fused Laminated driving licence and Registration Certificates in Registering Authority Ballabhgarh has been allotted to respondent No.3. The allotment of work to respondent No.3 has been challenged primarily on the ground that no public notice inviting tenders/quotations was ever issued and that the allotment of work to respondent No.3 is based on political considerations. It is stated that in the year 2003, the Deputy Commissioner, who is president of Red Cross Society, Faridabad, invited tenders through public notice published in the newspapers for preparation of Smart Card, Shape Fused Laminated driving licence and Registration Certificates in Registering Authority, Ballabhgarh. CWP No.7360 of 2010 2 Petitioner received tender documents for an amount of Rs.100/- and submitted the same. A committee comprising of Additional Deputy Commissioner; SDM, Faridabad; SDM Palwal; SDM Ballabhgarh; DIO Faridabad, Secretary, Red Cross Society, opened tender and the work was allotted to one Gulshan Goel being the lowest tenderer. Said Gulshan Goel did not start work and as per the minutes of the meeting the work was allotted to the second lowest tenderer. It is stated that the petitioner being the next lowest tenderer, the work was allotted to him vide letter dated 31.07.2003. This allotment was for a period of one year. According to the petitioner, he executed the work to the satisfaction of the respondents and they allowed him to continue with the job work for following years i.e. 2004-05 and 2005-06. It is further stated that new Palwal District was created and the job work for the said district was also allotted to him vide letter dated 27.09.2008. Separate replies have been filed by the official and private respondents. It is a common stand of the respondents that the public notice inviting tenders/quotations was published in local newspapers “Adhikar” on 20.02.2010 and re-advertised in national daily “Amar Ujala” on 06.03.2010. The tender notice was also given on the internet website “Tender Home. Com.” on 06.03.2010. As many as five quotations/tender forms were received including that of respondent No.3 before closing dated i.e. 11.03.2010. Tender form was to be received upto 11.03.2010 in a sealed cover. The names of the five tenderers have been mentioned in paragraphs 1 of the reply filed by respondent No.3. It is stated that respondent No.3's quotation being lowest at Rs.30.50 per card for both type of cards, the CWP No.7360 of 2010 3 tender committee allotted the job work to respondent No.3 vide letter dated 21.04.2010. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not file fresh tender form in the year 2010. In the replication filed by the petitioner, it is stated that in the public notice, area was not specified. Publication was so vague, nothing could be derived regarding area i.e. for which area the tender was invited. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In sum and substance the entire thrust of the case of the petitioner is that the job work has been allotted to respondent No.3 without resorting to the public notice and without granting any opportunity to the petitioner to compete with other eligible tenderers. There is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pick and chose method has been adopted in allotting the job work to respondent No.3. In the reply of the respondents, it has come on record that the tender notice mentioned above was published in two different newspapers i.e. local newspaper “Adhikar” and national newspaper “Amar Ujala” for the job work. Respondent No.3 was amongst five tenderers who applied in response to the public notice and on the basis of comparative merit and the rates quoted by respondent No.3 being lowest, he was allotted the job work. There is no dispute that valid procedure has not been adopted for allotment of the job work to respondent No.3. The petitioner has not applied pursuant to tender notice, thus, he cannot raise any objection to the allotment of the job work. To the contrary, it has come on record that the petitioner was allowed the job work for the period 2003-04 but he continued to do the job work for the next two to three years without inviting any fresh tenders. There has been no pick and chose method, inviting any CWP No.7360 of 2010 4 interference by this Court. It is settled law that this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the contract matters cannot sit as the appellate authority. The Court can only examine method and manner under which tender/contract is allotted. In view of the above, I do not find any impropriety, illegality or arbitrariness in the allotment of the job work to respondent No.3 which has been allotted by the respondents by adopting due procedure. Hence, no merit, the petition is, thus, dismissed with no order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) 08.04.2011 JUDGE BLS