Dismissed

M/S J.K.Builders & Contractors v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jan 2012CWP/20248/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the petitioner's disqualification from a tender process. The court held that the petitioner, registered with PWD (B&R), was ineligible under the Punjab Irrisdiction Department's condition requiring registration with that specific department, finding no violation of Article 14.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S J.K.Builders & Contractors Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

CWP No. 20248 of 2011

¶3

Date of Decision: January 10, 2012

¶4

M/s J.K. Builders & Contractors

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶16

The petitioner is aggrieved by the declaration made by the respondents that it is disqualified from the tendering process in question and the action of the respondents has been challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶17

A notice inviting e-tenders was issued by the Punjab Irrigation Department and the petitioner applied for the same. However, the petitioner was found to be in-eligible and was granted permission to withdraw (P-7).

¶18

The basic reason given for in-eligibility of the petitioner is that in the e-tender, the eligibility for participation/conditions for pre-qualification, have been laid down. According to the first

¶19

CWP No. 20248 of 2011

¶20

¶21

condition only those contractors were eligible who were registered with the Punjab Irrigation Department and have deposited the requisite licence fee.

¶22

In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the aforesaid condition has been incorporated in the preliminary objection to urge that the petitioner is not a registered contractor with the Punjab Irrigation Department and, therefore, was not entitled for the tender. Accordingly, he was disqualified.

¶23

There is no replication to the aforesaid objection raised by the respondents. All that has been claimed is that the petitioner is registered with the PWD (B&R) Branch. In that reliance has been placed on the certificate of renewal of enlistment of contractor. A perusal of the aforesaid document would show that the petitioner is registered with the PWD (Building and Road) Branch and not with the Punjab Irrigation Department.

¶24

In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position, we are of the considered view that the respondents have committed no illegality by declaring the petitioner in-eligible and disqualified to participate in the tendering process in question. The writ petition lacks merit and does not warrant admission. Dismissed.

¶25

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶26

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

January 10, 2012 PKapoor

M/S J.K.Builders & Contractors v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S J.K.Builders & Contractors v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S Beas Scietific Dyers

M/S.Steelmaster Industries Jalandhar and Anr. Vs Collector Central Excise Collectorrate

M/S Ghuna Ram etc. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Patiala and Ors.

M/S Birla Tyres Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Universal Chemists Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

M/S Gautam Construction Co.& Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.