IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No. 6142 of 2018 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 19^th April, 2018

M/s Hindustan Enterprises

.......Petitioner

versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others

&.Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN, JUDGE

Present:

Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sehaj Bir Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

The petitioner has challenged the respondents9 refusal to extend

the transportation contract entered into between the parties. The respondents

had invited tenders for transportation of cables and stacking of material by 9

MT Trucks and 6 MT Trucks. Different rates for each of the categories of

the trucks were quoted. The clause relating to the extension reads as under:D

<OTHER IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS

1 to 7 &&&&&&.

8. The contract will be valid for two years and it may be extended for

further two (1+1) years on the basis of performance of the contractor.=

(emphasis supplied).

2.

The respondents are not bound to extend the contract. This is

clear from the word 8may9. There is no warrant for reading word 8may9 as

8shall9. We do not find the respondents9 decision not to extend the contract

to be irrational, unfair or illegal.

Ravinder Sharma

2018.04.20 16:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP No. 6142-2018 2

3.

In the affidavit reply, the respondents have tabulated the rates

quoted for 6MT and 9 MT trucks by the other bidders as well. The bids of

two bidders for each category are lower than the petitioner9s bid. This itself

would entitle the respondents to refuse to extend the contract instead to

invite fresh bids.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that

the respondents have extended the contract for the other contracts despite the

fact that the bids of some of the other contractors are higher than the bids of

other contractors. We will assume that this is an arbitrary exercise of power

by the official respondents. Indeed the higher authorities of the official

respondents ought to have examined this aspect. However, even assuming it

is established that the award of the contract to the other bidders was unfair,

that would not entitle the petitioner to an extension of his contract.

5.

The respondents, however, stated that their decision does not

rest on one ground alone. There have been differences of opinion between

the Directors of the petitioners and the respondents. We do not wish to

express any view regarding the same. What is important, however, is that the

respondents alleged that the petitioners have violated the following clauseD

5(d) of the Notice Inviting Tenders, which reads as under:D

<5. PAYMENTS:D

(a)to (c)

(d) Owner/contractor will be responsible for complying with all

rules and regulations under factories Act, Industrial Dispute

Act, EPF Act, Labour Act, Bonus Act and Workmen

Compensation Act and other relevant Acts.=

Ravinder Sharma

2018.04.20 16:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP No. 6142-2018 3

The respondents contend that the petitioner failed to comply

with the obligations under the Act. The respondents have referred to several

letters and reminders in this regard.

6.

In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. We do not

express any views as to the legality of the extension of contracts of other

bidders. That is a matter which the higher authoritie