IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7738/2011-J Decided on:2.12.2011 _____________________________________________ Balwinder Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Respondents invited tenders for sanitation work for health institutions, including M.G.M.S.C. Khaneri, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. in the month of February, 2011. Petitioner participated in the tendering process. The tenders were opened on 19.2.2011. The rates quoted by the petitioner were the lowest. Petitioner was legitimately expecting that since the rates quoted by him are the lowest, he would be awarded the work. He was called for negotiations on 3.8.2011. He participated in the negotiations and as per negotiation, his bid was raised from ` 73,982/- to ` 81,602/-. This bid was also the lowest. In view of this the Senior Medical Officer, i.e. respondent No.4 sought the help of Chief Medical Officer, i.e. respondent No.3 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 to resolve the matter. However, the fact of the matter is that as per reply, all the codal formalities were completed and the petitioner was awarded the work. 2. Accordingly, so far as the main grievance with regard to allotment of work is concerned, the petition to this extent has become infructuous. However, Ms. Seema Guleria has argued that though the work has been awarded, but the period will be confined only upto 31.3.2012. In other words, according to her, the petitioner will not be permitted to work for a period of 12 months. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the delay is attributable to the petitioner. 4. It is evident from the facts enumerated hereinabove that the bid quoted by the petitioner was the lowest at the time of opening of the tender and even after the negotiations, it was lowest, i.e. ` 81,602/-. Respondent No.3 has only entered into correspondence with the petitioner in the month of July, 2011 as per Annexure R-2/II. He has also taken up the matter with the Chief Medical Officer as discussed hereinabove on 3.8.2011. Petitioner had been called upon for negotiations on 3.8.2011. Thus, the plea raised by Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General that there is delay on the part of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It was expected from the respondents to deal with the matter with promptitude since it pertained to 3 sanitation contract, that too, in a hospital. The respondents instead of taking the matter with utmost promptitude by entering into correspondence with petitioner have decided to extend the period of existing contractor. The period for which the tenders were called was one year, i.e. 31.3.2011 to 31.3.2012. In the case in hand, delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove. Thus, the petitioner is required to be permitted to work for a period of 12 months. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to work for a period of 12 months beginning from the date of award of the work in favour of the petitioner. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 2.12.2011 *awasthi*