IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.253 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.7.2009
Dhan Nirankar Social Welfare Society & another.
-----Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab and others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate
for the appellants.
-----
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by dismissal of their
writ petition, challenging cancellation of Request for Proposal
(RFP) process.
2. Vide Public Notice dated 3.6.2003, Punjab
Infrastructure Development Board and Department of Technical
Education & Industrial Training invited Expression of Interest for
development and running of 12 Industrial Training Institutes
(ITIs). Late Harkrishan Lal father of appellant No.2, proprietor of
Harkrishan Theatre, submitted expression of interest for running
of ITI at Jalalabad. He also gave an undertaking to form a
LPA No.253 of 2008 2
society, as required. Accordingly, appellant No.1 Society was
registered on 18.7.2003. Bank guarantee was also given. On
18.4.2004, Harkrishan Lal died. However, the bank guarantee
was extended. The issue, however, remained pending and vide
letter dated 11.2.2005, Annexure P-21, respondent No.2
informed the appellants that decision had been taken to cancel
the RFP process in respect of ITI Jalalabad. The original
FDRs/Bank guarantees were returned. The appellants filed writ
petition, on the ground that the decision of respondent No.2 was
arbitrary. The stand of respondent No.2 in the written statement
was to the effect that it had absolute discretion to reject the
proposal under Clause 5.14 of the Notice conditions.
3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
mainly on the ground that the appellants were never the
applicants in the Expression of Interest. Late Harkrishan Lal had
applied individually, though as proprietor of Harkrishan Theatre.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
even if the respondent No.2 had absolute right in the matter, its
exercise by a public authority had to be on some rational basis.
In the reply filed or in the impugned order, no rationale has been
shown.
6. Even though we do not find any ground to interfere
with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that Harkrishan
Lal who had made the application having died, cancellation of
LPA No.253 of 2008 3
RFP may be justified on that ground, the fact remains that this
was not the objection of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2
ought to inform the appellants reasons for cancellation of RFP.
7. We, accordingly, without expressing any opinion on
merits, direct that respondent No.2 may inform the appellants
reasons for its decision for cancelling the RFP process within
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
8. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
July 21, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
ashwani JUDGE