IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.13508 of 2009
Date of decision: 1.9.2009
M/s Deepak Kumar.
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Municipal Corporation, Patiala.
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
---
ORDER:
1. This petition challenges opening of financial bids of
tenderers who did not qualify in terms of tender conditions.
2. Case set out in the petition is that vide Tender Notice
dated 29.7.2009, Annexure P-1, tenders were invited by the
respondent for advertisement rights on 60 unipoles at Patiala for
three years. Similarly, vide notice dated 30.7.2009, Annexure P-
2, tenders for advertisement rights in respect of 539 pole kiosks
were invited. The petitioner gave its tender. The financial bids
could be opened only if conditions of technical bids were fulfilled.
Some of the parties who were not eligible as per the tender
conditions were also considered and their financial bids were also
taken into account, which amounted to be an illegality. Such a
CWP No.13508 of 2009 2
decision was arbitrary and liable to be interfered with as per law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D. Shetty v.
Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute
that the parties who have been considered eligible for contract
offered better deal as compared to the petitioner. Jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary jurisdiction
and is not to be exercised mechanically. In absence of any
malafides or prejudice, even if there is any technical breach,
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not called for.
5. Dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
September 01, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE