IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 6418 of 2008 Date of decision: 12.11.2008 Anil Electric Works -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. Amit Goyal, advocate for respondent No.3. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J 1. This petition was filed for a direction to issue Tender Form to the petitioner. 2. Case set out in the petition is that on 28.3.2008, notice inviting tenders was issued for maintenance work of street lights of Batala City for the year 2008-09 starting from April 8, 2008. The petitioner was not given the Tender Form inspite of his visit to the CWP No.6418 of 2008 concerned office on 8.4.2008 and 9.4.2008. This petition was filed on 15.4.2008. 3. On 24.4.2008, notice was issued and since service was not complete, fresh notice was issued on 19.5.2008 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner filed C.M.No.16635 of 2008 on 26.8.2008 for impleading Salwinder Singh & Sons, Electric Works, Guru Nanak Naghar, near Guruteg Bahadur Gurudwara, Batala, District Gurdaspu,r as party, as contract was awarded to the said party on 9.4.2008. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it is submitted that though, the petitioner made a request for Tender Form, he did not deposit the tender fee and earnest money, which was required. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason given for not supplying the tender form was not valid. The petitioner was willing to pay the fee of the form which was only Rs.150/- and there was no requirement of any deposit before the supply of tender form. He submits that the petitioner was wrongly denied opportunity to submit tender and he suffered loss in the 2 CWP No.6418 of 2008 process. It is also submitted that allotment of tender was illegal ignoring the tender condition about experience. 7. Having regard to the fact that the contract stands already awarded about seven months ago and it is only for one year, we do not consider it appropriate to go into the disputed questions raised in the petition, as the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner at this stage, even if it succeeds, is of damages. 8. Without expressing any opinion on merits, we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue its remedy in Civil Court, if so advised. 9. The petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 12,2008 (L.N.Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3