CWP No. 19309 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19309 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.10.2010 M/s Singla Engineering & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sajal Koser, Advocate for the petitioner. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks a declaration that the petitioner- Company is eligible to bid in term of notices inviting tenders, Annexures P-1 to P-4. 2. Case set out in the petition is that PWD Department issued notices inviting tenders for certain construction works which prescribed technical qualification of having experience laid down therein. Though the petitioner was duly qualified in terms of the requirements as specified in the said notices, it was declared to be disqualified only on the ground that a Joint Venture Firm M/s CDS (India) & SCC (JV) had been debarred from tendering for six months. The petitioner is a private limited company with separate existence having no concern with the firms which were debarred except that the petitioner is a constituent of the said firms. When the representative of the petitioner protested, he CWP No. 19309 of 2010 -2- was told that the reason for disqualifying was its taking benefit of the past work experience as constituent of debarred firms. The petitioner represented against its bid being rejected by submitting that since it had separate existence, it could not be treated as unqualified only on the ground that it was constituent of the debarred firms. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. On being asked whether any of directors of the petitioner was partner or proprietor of the debarred firm, learned counsel states that one of the directors Shri H.P.Singla, through whom this petition has been filed was the proprietor of the debarred firm. If this is so, contention that the petitioner had no link with debarred firms cannot be accepted. It is, thus, a possible view that accepting the petitioner as qualified bidder will be nullifying the order of blacklisting which is not under challenge. 5. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 28, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE