IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.1629 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 4.8.2009
Kamal Dhawan.
-----Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana & others
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
---
ORDER:
1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 27.2.2008,
Annexure P-34, order dated 17.10.2008, Annexure P-48, Tender
Notice dated 16.1.2009, Annexure P-58 and order dated
19.1.2009, Annexure P-53.
2. The grievance in the petition is that the petitioner was
awarded a contract for advertisement for which agreement,
Annexure P-57, dated 24.12.2008 was executed. The petitioner
signed the said agreement under threat. The petitioner agreed to
CWP No.1629 of 2009 2
the conditions laid down in the agreement, which are not
reasonable. The agreement was signed on 24.12.2008 but the
contract commences from 1.12.2008 and thus, the petitioner is
required to pay for the period prior to the agreement also. Vide
letter dated 27.2.2008, Annexure P-34, it has been stated that the
Municipal Council, Sonepat, respondent No.3 was not responsible
to remove all the sign boards in the city and that sign boards were
to be removed by the petitioner himself. Vide letter dated
17.10.2008, it was intimated that till the agreement was executed,
work if any done by the petitioner, will be his responsibility. Vide
letter dated 19.1.2009, it has been mentioned that the petitioner
was authorized to start work from 1.12.2009. Vide Tender Notice
dated 16.1.2009, proposals have been invited from the interested
parties for the construction of Bus Que Shelter, which was in
violation of the contract.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, respondent No.2
opposed the submissions in the petition, by stating that inspite of
being asked to do so, the petitioner failed to take steps for signing
of the agreement and finally agreed to sign the agreement on
24.12.2008. He was bound by the terms to which he agreed.
4. In view of above, there are disputed questions of fact
whether the agreement, which the petitioner signed, was of his
own volition or under any influence and whether there was any
breach of conditions of the agreement. This Court, under Article
CWP No.1629 of 2009 3
226 of the Constitution, is not an appropriate forum for raising
such disputes.
5. The petition is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
August 04, 2009 ( DAYA
CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE