HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1201/2011 Date of Decision: April 27, 2011 Bhupesh Janartha ……. Petitioner Versus The Secretary (Health) & Anr. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. Vipinder Roach, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Guleria, Asstt. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Notice Inviting Tender was issued by respondent No.2 with regard to the sanitation and other allied services to be carried out in the Regional Hospital, Bilaspur. One of the tender conditions provided for as under:- “Duration of contract shall be one year from the date of the issue of the rate contract extendable to one more year on mutual consent subject to satisfactory performance.” 2. Petitioner was found eligible and his bid was accepted by the authorities and contract awarded to him on 1.11.2010. This is also apparent from the certificate issued by the Senior Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Bilaspur (Annexure P-3). 3. However, during the subsistence of this contract, respondent No.2 issued another Notice Inviting Tender (Annexure P-2). Petitioner, who was perhaps satisfactorily executing the contract also participated in the bid 2 process, but immediately thereafter approached this Court, inter alia praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents be restrained from executing the award of tenders to third parties as per the advertisement dated 24.1.2011 (Annexure P-2) until the period of completion of the work already awarded to the petitioner. (ii) That the petitioner having challenged the notification of the policy dated 24.4.2011 be declared as null and void as it is against the public policy and natural justice, particularly for establishments working in this sector and further the labour class who would be rendered unemployed by such arbitrary action on the part of the State. (iii) That the interest of the petitioner be protected so that he can accomplish his work allotted to him and no prejudice be caused to him nor his work be disturbed for the said period of complete one year (w.e.f. 1.11.2010 to 1.11.2011). (iv) That the record pertaining to the award may kindly be directed to be summoned from the office of respondent No.1 and 2 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (v) That fairness w.r.t. to the tender allotted be made, to be followed which reflects the standing instructions and violation of the same be set-aside. (As per Annexure P-2 tender form). (vi) That the interim stay be awarded to the petitioner and direction be given to respondent No.1 and 2 not to go ahead on the advertised tenders dated 24.1.2011 till the allotted period of one year awarded to the petitioner stands completed.” 4. It is not the case of the respondent-authorities that petitioner has committed breach of any of the terms of contract awarded to him in the month of November, 2010. The terms of the N.I.T. specifically provides 3 for the duration of the contract to be “one year from the date of the issue of the rate contract”. Admittedly, this period had not come to an end and consequently, in the absence of breach of any of the tender conditions, the respondents could not have issued another N.I.T. (Annexure P-2) for the very same work and the period for which petitioner was executing the contract. The subsisting contract between the parties is neither terminated nor rescinded. Consequently, Annexure P-2 is quashed. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application, if any. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. April 27, 2011 (rana)