IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20828 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.11.2010 Baldev Sahai Garg ....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. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of tender notice dated 3.11.2010 for construction of Judicial Courts Complex at Ferozepur. 2. Case of the petitioner is that his bid for construction of work in question was accepted on 28.2.2007 and the work was allotted which was to be completed within 18 months. Since the work could not commence on account of objection of the army authorities about location of the proposed building, the petitioner was asked to execute the work as per original bid vide letter dated 5.10.2010 to which the petitioner did not agree. Thereafter, the impugned tender notice has been issued. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tender notice could not be issued for allotment of work in question to any one CWP No. 20828 of 2010 -2- else as the petitioner had already been allotted the said work. The petitioner should have been allowed to execute the said work at present market rate. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. Admittedly, the petitioner declined to execute the work at the rate at which the work was earlier allotted. If work was to be allotted on new terms, the petitioner could not claim any preferential right. Any person offering better terms could be considered. In any case, whether in the given circumstances, the petitioner may be allowed work at present market value or the same may be allotted by a fresh tender is a matter of administrative decision. No vested right can be claimed in favour of the petitioner on account of allotment of work three years earlier which could not commence. Claim for damages, if any suffered can also not be gone into in these proceedings. Such an issue may call for adjudication at any other appropriate forum in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to any other remedy of the petitioner in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 23, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE