M/S Dhillon Roadways v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.19010 of 2016 Date of decision: September 14, 2016 M/s Dhillon Roadways ....Petitioner versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN *****

Present:

Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Eklavya Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) 1.

The prayer made in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure P-10) whereby the bid/tender submitted by the petitioner has been ejected for the reasons "not meeting PQC". A further writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to consider the Bid/tender submitted by the petitioner at the lowest rate i.e. L-1.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure P-10), the respondents have rejected the bid submitted by the petitioner in E-tender I.D. No.2015_NRO_25708_1 during technical evaluation on the ground 'not meeting PQC', without assigning any reason and by passing a non-speaking order. He prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sonia Kinra 2016.09.21 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Civil Writ Petition No.19010 of 2016 -2- ---- concerned respondent by way of filing a detailed and comprehensive representation laying challenge to the impugned order (Annexure P-10). However, a prayer was made to issue a time bound direction to decide the said representation expeditiously. 3.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

4.

However, it is observed that in case, such a representation is filed by the petitioner before the concerned respondent within a week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same shall be decided by the concerned authority within a period of next one week by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) September 14, 2016 JUDGE sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No Sonia Kinra 2016.09.21 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh