Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Virgo Softech Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 September, 2010

Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel

Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH.


                                         C.W.P. No.16263 of 2010
                                        Date of decision: 10.9.2010

Virgo Softech Ltd.
                                                      -----Petitioner.
                                Vs.
State of Haryana and others.
                                                   -----Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

Present:-   Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr.Advocate with
            Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate
            for the petitioner.
                    ---


ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. This petition seeks direction for consideration of bid of the petitioner in response to RFP, Annexure P-1, for selection of System Integrator for implementation of Smart Card based Public Distribution System in Haryana by the Haryana State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd., respondent No.2 and to award the work to the petitioner, restraining respondent No.2 from allotting work to respondent No.6.

2. Objection of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 deviated from the terms notified in the RFP to favour respondent No.6.

CWP No.16263 of 2010 2

3. We find that the petitioner has not even approached respondent No.2 with the points now raised in the writ petition, in absence of which writ of mandamus cannot be entertained.

4. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with a view to approach respondent No.2 in the first instance.

5. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn, as proposed.

6. If the petitioner makes any representation to respondent No.2 within one week from today, decision may be taken thereon within two weeks thereafter. The matter may be finalised after considering the said representation unless the matter has already been finalised before receiving a copy of this order. It is made clear that we have neither looked into the merits of the case nor expressed any opinion thereon.


                                       (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                               JUDGE


September 10, 2010                         ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )
ashwani                                            JUDGE