M/S Dhaliwal Construction Company v. National Fertilizer Limited And Others

CWP No. 32507 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 116 Case No. : CWP No. 32507 of 2019 Date of Decision:November 08, 2019 M/s Dhaliwal Construction Company .... Petitioner vs.

National Fertilizer Limited and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA, JUDGE * * * Present :

Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * * RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) :

The petitioner had applied for obtaining a tender for maintenance of Railway Track of NFL Siding, Bathinda, for the year 2019-20.

Aggrieved by the rejection of his representation against the allotment of the contract to the private respondents, the petitioner assails the order passed by the Authority dated 07.10.2019 rejecting its representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Authority totally ignored the fact that the tender of the private respondents was not in the exact format that was prescribed and that the Authority also ignored the fact that the petitioner was L-1. It is further submitted that the Authority has wrongly calculated the amount quoted by the petitioner by relying upon a unit price whereas the petitioner has actually qualified the same. NAROTAM DASS 2019.11.18 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 32507 of 2019 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the Authority rejecting the petitioner's representation.

On the face of it, it is apparent that the Authority has examined both the issues framed by the petitioner. It is also noticed that the Authority has considered the bid of the private respondents in the format submitted by them and found to be in accordance with law and the Authority has taken the unit price mentioned by the petitioner as the final amount quoted by him instead of complete amount mentioned by the petitioner. Apparently, the reasons given by the Authority for rejecting the petitioner's representation do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court.

Dismissed.

( RAVI SHANKER JHA ) CHIEF JUSTICE November 08, 2019 ( RAJIV SHARMA ) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.

NAROTAM DASS 2019.11.18 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC CHANDIGARH