M/S Instruments And Equipment Co vs Union Of India & Others on 16 September, 2008

C.W.P No. 14500 of 2008                                          ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                      C.W.P No. 14500 of 2008

                                      Date of decision : September 16, 2008


M/S Instruments and Equipment Co.
                                            ...... Petitioner

                                through Mr.A.K.Aggarwal, Advocate

                           v.

Union of India & others,
                                            ...... Respondents

                                through Mr.Ashwani Bansal, Advocate
                                        for respondent No.1.

                                         Mr.Madan Mohan, Advocate
                                         for respondents No.2 to 6.


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

                                ***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

***

AJAY TEWARI, J

This petition has been filed challenging the tender notice dated

23.7.2008 issued by respondent No.6.

The petitioner claims to be an approved manufacturer for

procurement of wide range AVRs against DGS&D rate contract. As per the

learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned tender notice mentions that

three concerns viz. respondents No.7, 8 and 9 are the approved

manufacturers for the tender items. It is his contention that even though the

petitioner was eligible yet it has been excluded by the mention of these three

respondents.

C.W.P No. 14500 of 2008 ::2::

In our opinion, this writ petition must fail. The petitioner did

not even purchase the tender notice. Had it done so, and submitted the

same, it would have been able to urge before the respondents that it was

also eligible and that its tender should be considered on merits. Instead, it

rushed to this Court challenging the tender notice itself. In these

circumstances, we dismiss this writ petition without further recording any

finding as to the eligibility or otherwise of the petitioner which may be

raised by it whenever the opportunity arises.

No costs.

                                           ( AJAY TEWARI )
                                                JUDGE



                                      ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
                                              JUDGE
September      16, 2008
'kk'