IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.16820 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.9.2010 Sultan Singh. -----Petitioner. Vs. Food Corporation of India & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of action of the official respondent of opening of bid of respondent No.4, as eligible tenderer. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of Tender Notice, Annexure P-2A, for appointment of handling and transport contractor, the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 gave their bids. One of the requirements in the advertisement, Annexure P-2, was that the truck union and the partnership firm should be registered with the competent authority. Respondent No.4 claimed itself to be a partnership firm but the same was not CWP No.16820 of 2010 registered. Inspite of this, respondent No.4 was considered to be eligible and its bid was taken into account. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the official respondent should have rejected the bid of respondent No.4 on the ground that it was an unregistered firm and negotiated with the petitioner in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.B. Electricity Board v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. & others AIR 2001 SC 682. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. 6. The petitioner has not even put forward his objection to the official respondent that respondent No.4 is an unregistered partnership firm. He, however, submits that some other bidder has put forward this objection by way of representation, Annexure P-6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware whether the bid of respondent No.4 has been accepted or not. 7. In view of above, we are unable to go into the question whether respondent No.4 is eligible or not. It is well established practice, as noticed in judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & another v. Mrs. Elizabeth Mayne and another AIR 1976 SC 1651 that before a writ of mandamus is sought, the concerned authority must be called upon to perform its duty. The petitioner has admittedly not done so. Moreover, direction to negotiate with the petitioner is 2 CWP No.16820 of 2010 not called for on the basis of judgment relied upon, though it may be permissible in a given situation. 8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, as premature. The petitioner will, however, be at liberty to put forward his objection to the concerned official respondent in accordance with law. 9. If any objection is received by the concerned respondent within one week from today, the same may be taken into account by the said respondent before finalizing the matter, if the matter has not been finalised till the receipt of objection of the petitioner. This may not be treated as expression of any opinion on merits. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 17, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3