Punjab-Haryana High Court
Signals And Systems India Pvt Ltd Th Ceo L ... vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam And ... on 31 March, 2016
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-6042-2016
Date of decision:- 31.03.2016
Signals and Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. (SANDS)
...Petitioner
Versus
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN) and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present:- Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
* * * *
S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (ORAL)
The petitioner seeks an order quashing a Letter of Award (in short LoA) dated 11.02.2016 and in the alternative an order permitting it to exit the contract process and the LoA.
2. The LoA is in respect of the following:-
"Letter of Award for Recording of monthly meter reading with CMRI, processing of data for billing in common/required format & complete analysis of 1/3rd meter data every month including Load survey, logging of tamper events and consumption pattern of various categories of consumers with LT CT and HT CT-PT meters so that the data analysis of complete meters are carried out once in a quarter under jurisdiction of operation Circle Bhiwani, Hisar, Jind, Narnaul, Rewari & Sirsa under DHBVN against NIT No. 11/CE/C/2015-16."
3. The LoA dated 11.02.2016 opens by stating that it is with reference to the petitioner's bid against the above work, the subsequent correspondences between the parties and the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 02-04-2016 00:15:21 ::: CWP-6042-2016 2 final rates quoted by the petitioner against the tender enquiry. It further states that the petitioner's offer of revised rates had been accepted at a meeting held on 14.01.2016. The letter, however, states that a contract had come into force for carrying out the said work for a period of two years. The petitioner's case is that the contract has not come into force as the LoA is in respect of a smaller quantum of work than what the petitioner bid for. The petitioner in fact after the receipt of the LoA had made representations, inter alia, to this effect and stated that it was unable to accept the LoA in the present form pending a final decision on its representation by the respondents.
4. It is not possible for us to grant the reliefs claimed especially regarding quashing the LoA and permitting the petitioner to exit from the contract process. It is apparent even from the above documents that whereas the respondents contend that the contract has come into force, the petitioner contends that the contract has not come into force. The petitioner's representations are pending. Negotiations for settlement can be held between the parties. If the same do not fructify and if the respondents take any action for breach of contract, it is always open to the petitioner to defend itself in accordance with law. No interference is called for at this stage.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 31.03.2016 Amodh 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 02-04-2016 00:15:22 :::