Dismissed

M/S Indian Hydrophilic Academy v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2013CWP/11145/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of tender notice for swimming pool maintenance and continuation of work for 2013-14. Court dismissed petition holding that mere rent acceptance for two post-contract months without valid extension order did not confer legal right to continue work.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of tender notice and continuation of work for year 2013-14 dismissed.

M/S Indian Hydrophilic Academy Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 11145 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 11145 of 2013 Date of Decision: 22.5.2013

¶5

Indian Hydrophilic Academy

¶6

....Petitioner.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...Respondents.

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA.

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶13

In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashing of tender notice dated 1.5.2013 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No.3 for running and maintenance of swimming pool at Gymkhana Club, Sector-14, Rohtak. Further prayer has also been made to continue the work of running, maintenance and operating of the swimming pool for the year 2013-14.

¶14

Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition as narrated therein are that the petitioner-Academy was allotted running, maintenance and operating of HUDA Swimming Pool, Sector-14, Rohtak during the year 2012-13 vide memo dated 16.4.2012 (Annexure P-1). The swimming pool was closed for a period of five months from November 2012 to March 2013 for some repair work. The

¶15

CWP No. 11145 of 2013 -2-

¶16

petitioner vide letter dated 20.3.2013 (Annexure P-3) approached respondent No.3 to allow it to continue work at the swimming pool and agreed to pay 20% increased rate of rent per month. Since the petitioner was not allowed to operate the swimming pool after October 2012 to March 2013, the respondents had directed the petitioner to continue for the year 2013-14 at the same rate of rent for the months of April and May, 2013. After the payment of rent for the aforesaid two months, the petitioner started operating the swimming pool and also issued advertisement and invited members for swimming and even issued membership on yearly basis for one year. However, the respondents invited fresh tenders vide notice dated 1.5.2013 (Annexure P-5) for maintenance and running of the swimming pool, Sector 14, HUDA, Rohtak. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the expiry of the earlier contract on 31.3.2013, respondent No.5 had accepted the rent for the months of April and May, 2013 and in such circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to continue operating the swimming pool for the year 2013-14.

¶18

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the said argument. It was not denied that the allotment for running, maintaining and operating of HUDA swimming pool at Gymkhana Club, Sector-14, Rohtak was for the year 2012-13 which was valid from 16.4.2012 to 31.3.2013. It was not disputed that the said period had expired on 31.3.2013. However, as per Clause (j) of tender notice, in pursuance of which the work was allotted to the petitioner had specifically stated that the work allotment was valid for one year from 16.4.2012 to 31.3.2013 but could be extended further subject to

¶19

CWP No. 11145 of 2013 -3-

¶20

better/satisfactory performance. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to refer to any document on the basis of which it could be shown that there was an extension which had been made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the work which was allotted to it during the year 2012-13. Mere acceptance of rent for the months of April and May, 2013 by the office of respondent No.5 without any valid authorization by the competent authority would not confer any legal right on the petitioner to any allotment of work for the year 2013-14.

¶21

In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and

¶22

the same is hereby dismissed.

¶23

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶24

May 22, 2013 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) gbs JUDGE

M/S Indian Hydrophilic Academy v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Indian Hydrophilic Academy v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Universal Construction Company Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Hawa Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagroop Singh and Another Vs State of Haryana

Ram Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dharamvir Tyagi and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pardeep Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.