Judgment:
Civil Writ Petition No.13208 of 2013 (O&M) {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13208 of 2013 Date of Decision: October 09, 2013 Hardev Singh & Co., Grain Market, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JUDGE1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Harsimran Singh Sethi, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the State.
Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr.K.B.Raheja, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Ms.Ritu Bhalla, Advocate & Mr.Rohit Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
***** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the office order dated 25.4.2013 issued by respondent No.2 Kumar Ramesh 2013.10.10 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.13208 of 2013 (O&M) {2} blacklisting the petitioner as a contractor in the Water Supply and Sanitation Department.
The second prayer made is for quashing of the tenders allotted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as the bid of the petitioner was lower but on account of the petitioner being blacklisted, the tenders were not awarded to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the said respondent is not concerned with the dispute in question and the actual entity is the International Development Association, which ought to have been impleaded as respondent No.6.
It is her say that the action taken of blacklisting is not based on Clause 37.1 of Section 1 titled `Instructions to BiddeRs.of Invitation for Bids, which deals with the corrupt or fraudulent practices, but is actually based on the Manual of Order of Punjab PWD (B&R) (Revised Edition 1982) Amendment Slip No.2 dated 8.11.2002 Section 19(ii) (a&b).Thus, respondent No.6 is really neither a necessary nor proper party to the present writ petition.
It is the further submission of learned counsel for respondent No.6 that the officers of the correct respondent No.6 entity have certain privileges, but to our mind, it is not relevant as the impleadment of said respondent was for the purposes of this court having a view of the funding agency qua the issue of blacklisting.
Be that as it may, the fundamental question of blacklisting really does not survive in view of order stated to have been issued dated 24.9.2013 withdrawing the order of blacklisting on consideration of the representation of the petitioner.
The aforesaid leaves us only with the question of the award of Kumar Ramesh 2013.10.10 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.13208 of 2013 (O&M) {3} the tenders to respondent Nos.5 and 6.
We are informed that 75% of the work is over.
We are, thus, not inclined to interfere with the tender awarded, specifically when at the relevant stage of time the issue of blacklisting was operating against the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 cannot be blamed.
At request of learned counsel for the petitioner, we make it clear that we are not precluding the petitioner from seeking any civil remedy, if so advised, for alleged wrongful action of the respondent authorities more specifically respondent No.2 subject to all defences as may be open to them.
The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ) CHIEF JUSTICE October 09, 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ramesh JUDGE Kumar Ramesh 2013.10.10 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh