C.W.P. No.949 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.949 of 2010 Date of decision:20.01.2010 Sultan Singh ............Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. ALOK SINGH, J. By way of present petition, petitioner is assailing the notice dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) issued by the respondent authorities. 2. The brief facts of the present petition are that earlier respondent No.3 awarded contract of CWC based depot Nabha (non siding godown) for 2 years i.e. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 to one Bhan Singh Contractor. The said contractor did not execute the contract and abandoned the same. The contract for the remaining period was first awarded to Mahavir Singh and Company, respondent No.4 on 13.7.2009 @ 114% ASOR. The left work was to be completed upto 29.4.2010. Thereafter, the C.W.P. No.949 of 2010 -2- work in dispute was awarded to the petitioner by the respondent authorities vide order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner deposited 50% security as required with District Office Patiala and also applied for labour license with Labour Commissioner. But respondent No.4 had filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.17138 of 2009, challenging the award of work to the present petitioner. The respondent authorities issued notices dated 17.11.2009 and 26.12.2009 to the petitioner to join the work within two days failing which action would be taken against the petitioner as per Clause X of MTF (Model Tender Form). 3. In reply to the notice, written submissions were made by the petitioner vide letter dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure P-3). It was submitted that the notice was illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unilateral and against the facts. It was also submitted that labour license had not yet been granted to him and as and when the labour license is made available, he will start the work as per terms and conditions of MTF. It was also submitted that earlier contractor Sh. Mahavir Singh had filed above said writ petition, in which after issuance of notice, FCI had put in appearance and sought time for filing reply. It was submitted that non execution of work was due to the facts that the work to the applicant/petitioner is challenged in the above said writ petition and also the labour license has not yet been issued to him by the concerned authority. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that C.W.P. No.949 of 2010 -3- respondent authorities had issued a final notice dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby it was ordered that the petitioner had to join the work immediately, failing which, action as per terms and conditions of MTF will be taken. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by way of this notice respondent authorities are pressurizing the petitioner to execute the work. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. In the impugned notice dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P-5), it is clearly mentioned that prior to the impugned notice, petitioner was advised to obtain labour license and to start work vide letters dated 26/27.10.2009, 3.11.2009, 5.11.2009 and 16.11.2009. Petitioner was also warned that if petitioner, fails to start work, action as per terms and conditions of MTF will be taken. It was also communicated to the petitioner that he should start the work immediately and filing of the petition by the third party is no justification for not joining the work. 7. On being asked, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that no interim restrained order was passed against the petitioner in CWP No.17138 of 2009 filed by respondent No.4. 8. Having considered the entire material and argument, we find that there was absolutely no justification for the petitioner in not joining the work despite the communication sent by the respondent authorities from time to time, as mentioned in C.W.P. No.949 of 2010 -4- the impugned notice (Annexure P-5) dated 26.12.2009, and specially when there was no order restraining the petitioner to join the work in question. 9. In view of the above, we find no ground to invoke our jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. No interference is called for. 10. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 20.01.2010 JUDGE ashish