High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

R.K. Construction Co vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 20 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
R.K. Construction Co vs The State Of Haryana & Others on 20 August, 2009
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH.


                                          C.W.P. No.12497 of 2009
                                         Date of decision: 20.8.2009

R.K. Construction Co.
                                                        -----Petitioner
                                 Vs.
The State of Haryana & others
                                                    -----Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
             HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

Present:-    Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate
             for the petitioner.
                   ---


ORDER:

1. The grievance in the writ petition is that the petitioner

gave bid for allotment of work of improvement of Nuh

Mohmmadpur Kotla Bhadas Ghagas Road from kilometer 0 to

25.75 NABARD (RIDF XIV) I.D. Code 2506 in Mewat District, in

pursuance of notice inviting tenders, Annexure P-1. The price bid

of the petitioner was not considered without any valid reason by

assuming that the petitioner had not given any price bid, even

after holding the petitioner to be eligible. The petitioner had

already deposited earnest money of Rs.28 lacs and Rs.20,000/-

towards tender documents fee, which according to the

instructions of the petitioner, is accepted after submission of price
CWP No.12497 of 2009 2

bid. The petitioner made representation dated 12.8.2009,

Annexure P-7, but no reply was received. Work allotment is to be

done by the Engineer-in-Chief, respondent No.2, for which

process is pending.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it will

be just and fair that respondent No.2 takes into account view

point of the petitioner before taking any final decision.

3. Having regard to the nature of controversy, without

expressing any opinion on merits, we consider it appropriate to

direct respondent No.2 to take into account the representation of

the petitioner before taking a final decision. If the representation

of the petitioner is to be rejected, reasons therefor may be

conveyed to the petitioner.

4. The petition is disposed of.

5. Dasti on payment.


                                           (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                   JUDGE


August 20, 2009                                  (           DAYA
CHAUDHARY )
ashwani                                              JUDGE