Civil Writ Petition No.1901 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision:-18.2.2009
Traffic Media (India) Pvt. Limited
---Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
---Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present:- Mr.Vivek Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.I.S.Sidhu, Advocate
and Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Joint Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation, Ludhiana for respondent No.3.
Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.4.
J.S.KHEHAR, J. (ORAL)
Replication to the written statement filed on behalf of
respondent No.3 has been handed over to us in Court today. Copy thereof
has also been furnished to the learned counsel for respondent No.3. The
same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. A separate replication
to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.4 has also been
handed over to us in Court today. Copy thereof has also been furnished to
the learned counsel for respondent No.4. The same is also taken on record,
subject to all just exceptions.
During the course of hearing, it emerged that there were
Civil Writ Petition No.1901 of 2009 2
disputed questions of fact. According to learned counsel representing the
respondents, the tender submitted by the petitioner was defective for three
reasons. These defects have been noticed in paragraph 3 of the preliminary
submissions contained in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent
No.3. In order to demonstrate their fairness to this Court, learned counsel
for respondent No.3, i.e. Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana stated that the
Finance and Contract Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana
had taken a decision not to accept any bid which was less than the bid
tendered by the petitioner, namely Rs.7.2 crores.
Despite the fact that the disputed questions of fact were
involved in the controversy raised by the petitioner, yet having examined
the averments made in the instant writ petition as also in the two
replications filed on behalf of the petitioner, we are of the view that there
was a “possibility” that the assertions made on behalf of the petitioner
“might” be truthful. It is therefore, that we enquired from the respondents
particulars of the highest bid, out of valid tenders submitted by the
interested parties on 23.1.2009. We were informed that the highest bid was
made by respondent No.4, who had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5 crores.
We enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner
whether the petitioner would be interested in hiking its bid amount, during
the process of negotiations, if he was allowed to participate in the same. In
response to our query, learned counsel for the petitioner having obtained
instructions told us, that the petitioner would comfortably enhance the bid
amount to Rs.7.6 crores, but with some difficulty he was willing to enhance
it even to Rs.8 crores, but not beyond that.
Learned counsel for respondent No.4, on instructions received,
Civil Writ Petition No.1901 of 2009 3
states that respondent No.4 is ready and willing to hike the bid amount
depicted in the tender submitted by respondent No.4 to Rs.8.05 crores (as
respondent No.3 i.e. Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana had taken a decision
not to accept the bid less than the bid of the petitioner in his tender namely
Rs.7.2 crores). This offer made by respondent No.4 to us in Court will be
deemed to be binding on respondent No.4, specially because the instant
petition is being disposed of on the basis of the undertaking given by
respondent No.4. In case respondent No.4 backs out from the amount
mentioned here-in-above namely Rs.8.05 crores, his earnest money shall
stand forfeited.
In view of the factual position noticed here-in-above, we are
satisfied and have arrived at a conclusion, that even if the tender documents
submitted by the petitioner were valid, the petitioner would not have been
favoured with the contract in question as he would not have been the
highest bidder even if an opportunity was available to him to compete for
the contract. As such, we are satisfied that no further action is called for in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the
clear understanding that respondent No.4 has enhanced his bid amount to
Rs.8.05 crores. The bid of respondent No.4 and others who participate in the
process of negotiations (if any) will be disposed of in accordance with law.
Obviously, if no other tenderer makes an offer in excess of Rs.8.05 crores, it
will be open to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana to accept the bid of
respondent No.4.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 states that it be clarified
(in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 5.2.2009) that it will be
Civil Writ Petition No.1901 of 2009 4
open to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana to finalize the matter in view
of the fact that the Finance and Contract Committee of the Municipal
Corporation, Ludhiana is scheduled to meet on 20.2.2009. Clarification
sought is the natural conclusion of the discussion noticed here-in-above, and
is accordingly accorded.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(J.S.Khehar)
Judge
(Nawab Singh)
18.2.2009 Judge
AS