Dismissed

Hemant Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2010CWP/15541/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of a transportation contract via writ petition. Respondent agency conceded it would pass a fresh order complying with principles of natural justice and suspend implementation of the cancellation. Court dismissed petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous following respondent's undertaking to pass a compliant order.

Hemant Kumar Vs State of Punjab and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No.15541 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.9.2010

Hemant Kumar.

-----Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Punjab and others.

¶7

-----Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶9

Present:Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab

¶11

Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No.3/PUNGRAIN.

¶12

¶13

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

¶14

This petition questions order dated 25.8.2010, Annexure P-10, passed by respondent No.4.

¶15

Case of the petitioner is that he was given a contract of transportation and labour by the PUNGRAIN, respondent No.3. The same was challenged by one Ashok Kumar by making a representation. Since no decision was being taken on the representation, writ petition was filed in which direction to take a decision on the representation was issued on 30.6.2010 in CWP

¶16

No.10399 of 2010 Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and ors. In

¶17

CWP No.15541 of 2010

¶18

¶19

view of said order, work allotted to the petitioner was cancelled by passing the impugned order.

¶20

This petition has been filed on the ground that before canceling the work already allotted to the petitioner, he was required to be heard or at least some reasons were required to be given as to why the work was being cancelled. The order canceling the contract is as under:-

¶21

“In regard to the aforesaid subject, Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o SH. Jit Ram had filed a Civil Writ Petition No.10399 of 2010 in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. In this regard according to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, on 23.04.2010 after hearing of the concerned officials and the applicant, a decision was taken that the tender accepted on 13.04.2010 for phillaur centre be cancelled. For this reasons you are directed that tenders for phillaur centre be called again immediately and action taken in this regard be informed to the Head Office.”

¶22

A perual of above order shows that no reason has been given and thus, the order can be held to be arbitrary. A decision affecting rights of a person has to be based on some reason and also has to comply with principles of natural justice. 5. Notice was issued. Learned counsel for the respondents state that a fresh order will be passed after complying with principles of natural justice and till passing of a fresh order, the impugned order of cancellation of work will not be given effect to.

¶23

CWP No.15541 of 2010

¶24

¶25

In view of above statement, this petition is dismissed

¶26

as infructuous.

¶27

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE

¶28

September 06, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE

Hemant Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santokh Singh Dhillon Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mangal Sain Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Cit Rohtak Vs Tek Singh Saini

M/S Ram Gopal Murli Dhar Juntra Vs State of Haryana

Gurjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

M/S Standard Agro Vet (P) Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.