IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.17035 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.11.2009 M/s S.P. Singla Constructions (P) Ltd. -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for respondent/caveator. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of award of tender dated 27.10.2009 in favour of respondent No.4. 2. Case set out in the petition is that respondent No.2 Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA) floated tender for construction of road under bridge. Tenders were to be opened on 17.4.2009 but on 24.3.2009, corrigendum was issued followed by other corrigenda, fixing the revised dates for pre-bid meetings and other steps. Even though initial bid of respondent No.4 was lower, revised bids were sought on the ground of CWP No.17035 of 2009 change in the scope of work, vide letter dated 24.9.2009, Annexure P-9. In pursuance thereof, bid given by the petitioner was the lowest, but the work was allotted to respondent No.4 by negotiations. 3. The petitioner made representation vide letter dated 3.11.2009, Annexure P-13, against award of work to respondent No.4 but no decision was being taken thereon. 4. Respondent No.4 has filed caveat and is represented by counsel who states that the petitioner could not be allowed to give a revised bid as there was no change in the original scope of work and bids were invited only for extra scope of work and thus, respondent no.4 remained L-1 and was rightly allotted work. 5. We are of the view that at this stage, it is not necessary to go into the rival contentions and take a final decision on the issue raised as learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.2 may be required to take a decision, after considering the view point of the petitioner before taking further steps. This prayer appears to be justified and for granting said relief, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. 6. Without expressing any opinion on merits, we direct respondent No.2 to take a decision on the objection of the petitioner, put forward vide Annexure P-13, in accordance with law, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before proceeding further in the matter. Decision may be 2 CWP No.17035 of 2009 taken by passing a speaking order, which may be conveyed to the petitioner. 7. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 10, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3