High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25523/2015disposed of

M/S P.S.Funeral & Ambulance Service v. Union Of India And ORS

2015-12-23Mr. Justice Dr. Shekher Dhawan,Mr. Justice M.M. Aggarwal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.25523 of 2015 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.12.2015 M/s P.S. Funeral & Ambulance Service .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner ..

S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

The petitioner has challenged a corrigendum to the notice inviting tenders (NIT). Bids were invited pursuant to the unamended NIT. That tender process was cancelled. Fresh tenders were invited. This invitation for tenders enhanced the rates of staff car from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.36,000/-. We do not see how such a change can affect any party. The corrigendum merely provides that the rates of staff car should not be more than Rs.36,000/-, whereas, earlier it was not to be more than Rs.25,000/-. If the petitioner's bid is more competitive, it is entitled to be awarded the work absent anything else. The corrigendum cannot be challenged on the ground that by increasing the minimum rates there will be more competitors.

The challenge to the corrigendum is, therefore, rejected.

The petitioner, however, further contends that the work order has already been allotted to respondent No.4 without the PARKASH CHAND 2015.12.23 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-25523-2015 - 2 - tenders having been opened and without the result having been announced. There is nothing on record that substantiates the same. The petitioner has not even made any enquiry from the official respondents in this regard. Learned counsel merely states that the petitioner has been orally informed by certain reliable sources. The petitioner ought, in the first instance, to have enquired from the official respondents the reasons for having allotted the work to respondent No.4 and for the result of the tender process. 4.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the tender process on any other ground(s) after first ascertaining the facts. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 23.12.2015 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) parkash* JUDGE PARKASH CHAND 2015.12.23 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document