Punjab-Haryana High Court
Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR2007P&H81, (2007)146PLR496, AIR 2007 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 81, 2007 (4) ABR (NOC) 598 (P&H), (2007) 2 PUN LR 496, (2007) 2 RECCIVR 194, (2007) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 374
Author: J.S. Narang
Bench: J.S. Narang
JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, C.J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:
1. Issue writ in the nature of Prohibition thereby prohibiting the Respondents from taking any actions in pursuance to the Tender Notice qua item No. 4 published in the Indian Express dated 24-11-2006.
2. direct the Respondents to withdraw Tender Notice published in the Indian Express dated 24 11-2006 qua item No. 4 which is in complete violation of the order dated 2-3-2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2321 of 2006.
3. the records of the case may kindly be summoned from the Respondents.
4. prior service to the Respondents may kindly be dispensed with and the petitioner be allowed to file second set of writ petition with annexures in photostat;
5. the filing of the certified copies of the annexures may kindly be dispensed with;
It is further prayed that as an ad interim measure the Respondents No. 1 to 4 be restrained from proceeding further with the Tender Notice qua item No. 4 published in the Indian Express dated 24-11-2006 for reasons that the Tender qua item No. 4 has already been awarded to the Petitioner pursuant to the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 2-3-2006 in CWP No. 2321 of 2006 and further not to open the tender qua item No. 4 or any other interim order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
2. Mr. Chopra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the instant petition has contended that when the earlier writ petition i.e. C.W.P. No. 2321 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner in relation to the contract in question, the petition was allowed and the Division Bench of this Court quashed the contract awarded to respondent No. 5 in the said writ petition. The said respondent had given a bid of Rs. 2.29 crores whereas the petitioner had given a bid of Rs. 1.7 crores. The petition was allowed with the following directions to the respondent Railways:
This we leave it open to the Railways to re-advertise the tender in question. However, the respondent-Railways would be at liberty to continue with the arrangement which is in progress. This, of course, has to be on payment of an amount calculated as per the bid amount given as highest bid.
3. Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to the aforesaid mandate issued by this Court, the petitioner had been required to deposit a sum of Rs. 89,86,278/- for the period indicated in the communication dated August 4,2006, copy Annexure P-6 and that the arrears of license fee and FDR in the sum of Rs. 3,82,728/-was also required to be deposited. The petitioner in response thereto deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,21,14.934/ to continue to display the hoardings on the entry and exit road of Chandigarh Railway Station. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, the railway authorities have issued advertisements while publishing the same in different newspapers and that one of them is "Indian Express" for awarding the publicity/advertising contract in the vicinity of Chandigarh Railway Station (item No. 4) vide which the petitioner had already submitted the tender and had been required to deposit the amount, which stood deposited accordingly as aforesaid. Once having exercised their option for continuing the arrangement offered by the petitioner, the Railway authorities were not entitled to re-advertise the tender accordingly'
4. Learned Counsel has drawn our attention to Annexure P-6 and has contended that this would manifestly demonstrate that the Railways had not opted for re-tendering process for a period of three years and that after having accepted the aforesaid amount the petitioner had been allowed to continue with the arrangement of display of advertisement accordingly and that this period would expire on December 30, 2008.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the paper book and the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2321 of 2006, decided on May 4, 2006. We have also given our thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The arguments are based on absolutely wrong premises. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench to buttress his contention that the contract in fact stands allotted to the petitioner for a period of three years. We are afraid, such intention of the railways cannot be inferred from the aforesaid judgment. The perusal of the communication dated. August 4. 2006, copy Annexure P-6 already shows that the petitioner had been permitted to continue with the display of Hoardings for the interregnum period i.e. from the date of the opening of the tender i.e. December 30, 2005 (which was quashed by this Court by virtue of the aforesaid judgment) up to November 30, 2006, or till finalization of retendering process, whichever is earlier and that for continuing to exploit the aforesaid, the petitioner was required to pay pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench, as is evident from the excerpt "Railways would be at liberty to continue with the arrangement which is in progress. This, of course, has to be on payment of an amount calculated as per the bid amount given as highest bid". We cannot treat the granting/accepting the tender in favour of the petitioner by any stretch of imagination. The Railways have been given the liberty to re-advertise the tender and invite the tenders accordingly. This would not take away the right of the petitioner to be one of the contenders. It is the rule that a Court cannot issue directions to the authority not to fetch higher price by re-tendering process. The Railways were absolutely clear in their mind, as has been clearly demonstrated by virtue of letter Annexure P-6 that the petitioner is authorised to continue displaying the advertisement of hoardings up to November 30, 2006 or till the finalization of re-tendering of the tender, whichever is earlier. The Court cannot stop the process or act against the interest of the respondent for an endeavour to earn more revenue. This Court would be certainly reluctant to act in such a fashion. The instant petition has been given the colour of a suit for permanent injunction, which obviously is not grantable and such petition would not be maintainable.
6. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed in limine.