The Gill Co-Op. L and C Society and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

A.K. Sikri, C.J.—Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 11 states that he has received instructions from the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana vide letter dated 03.01.2013. It is in vernacular and English translation thereof would read as under:-

No. _______ Dated ____ 2012

Subject: CWP No. 6954/2012, The Gill Cooperative L & C Society v. State of Punjab and others.

In connection with the aforesaid subject, it is informed that the tenders relating to the work cited as subject were called on 24.10.2011 wherein as per policy of the Government preference was given to labour and co-operative societies but some contractors had got stay against this policy from Punjab and Haryana High Court, and due to which this work could not be allotted to the labour and cooperative societies. The Councilors of various wards were asking for completion of these works and keeping their request in view this matter was considered by the Municipal Corporation Finance and Contract Committee and it was resolved that in case the order of the Court are awaited the work of development in the city would be adversely affected and invited fresh tenders by the Finance and Contract Committee after canceling the tenders earlier on 24.10.2011 vide its resolution No. 8970 dated 9.4.2012.

Thereafter on 19.4.2012, the tenders for these works were again invited wherein the Gill Labour and Cooperative Society has not participated. After opening these tenders, vide item No. 11, approval for allotment of these works was sought from the Finance and Contract Committee but the Finance and Contract Committee had taken the following decision on this item keeping in view the local Government Letter No. DSS-2012/33632-814 dated 4.9.2012. Keeping in view the aforesaid instructions of the government and the present financial condition of the Municipal Corporation, the committee has decided that all those cases to which approval has already been granted but the work has not been allotted or such cases wherein the tenders have not been invited, are cancelled. In addition to it, it is also resolved that the works which have already been allotted but have been stopped at the site, priority list thereof be prepared so that these could be restarted when the financial condition of the corporation is improved.

Accordingly, the works which are to be done will be done as per the priority list.

Sd/- Addl. Commissioner (Technical) Deputy Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. 03.01.2013.

The respondents had earlier invited the tenders giving preference to the Cooperative Societies in which the petitioners had participated and after evaluation of the bids received, the petitioners emerged as the successful tenderers. However, before the work could be awarded, the writ petition was filed in this Court challenging the preferences given to the Cooperative Societies. The stay order was passed staying the operation of the notification vide which the cooperative societies were given preferences and because of this reason the work could not be awarded to the petitioners. Since the stay was operating and according to the Municipal Corporation the work was hampering, this was the reason for inviting fresh tenders. The circumstances in which the aforesaid decision was taken cannot be faulted with. However, thereafter the writ petition in which the stay had been granted was dismissed and on this ground the petitioners now claimed in the present writ petition that they be awarded the work in question. It is, however, misfortune of the petitioners that in the meantime the decision is taken by the Municipal Corporation not to award any such work as the Corporation is facing huge financial crunch which is reflected in the aforesaid communication. Once such a decision is a taken by the Corporation not to award the work as it has no means to get the work done and pay for the same, a mandamus cannot be issued now directing the respondents to award the work to the petitioners, it is more so when even the fresh tenders which were issued have been scrapped.

In view thereof, we are not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioners and petition is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that after the petitioners were selected, they had made preparations and spent huge amount. It will always be open for the petitioners to claim damages, if they are entitled to.