Ms M G Launders vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 April, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ms M G Launders vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 April, 2025

Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050017-DB




CWP-10754-2025                                                                  -1-



104
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                    ***
                             CWP-10754-2025
                        Date of Decision: 15.04.2025

M/s M.G. Launders                                                  ..... Petitioner


                                    Versus


State of Haryana and others                                      ..... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Ashish Arora, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                          ****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for

directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner/firm, raised

vide representation dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) regarding further

extension of ‘Period of Contract’ for one year further, as in terms of the

Tender Document dated nil (Annexure P-6) wherein sole criteria for

extension is the satisfactory performance, which has been meticulously

performed by the petitioner/firm vide Performance Certificate dated

05.02.2025 with further prayer to issue a direction to the respondent not to

act upon the Tender Document dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) without

deciding the claim of the petitioner.

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 22:43:28 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050017-DB

CWP-10754-2025 -2-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case

where the petitioner was allotted a tender for a period of one year in terms of

the award letter dated 22.07.2024 vide Annexure P-3 in which it has been so

mentioned that it will be for a period of one year i.e. w.e.f. 01.12.2023 to

30.11.2024 and submitted that thereafter, the respondents did not permit the

petitioner to continue with the work and vide Annexure P-2, revised period

of one year was granted to it which was w.e.f. 22.07.2024 to 21.07.2025 and

submitted that the aforesaid period which has been so mentioned vide

Annexure P-2 was the first year of tenure and it was not an extended period.

He also submitted that the aforesaid expression ‘revised period’ which has

been so stated was with regard to no such work having been allotted to the

petitioner earlier.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per

the terms of ‘Period of Contract’ which have been so stipulated vide

Annexure P-6, there is a provision under the heading of ‘Period of Contract’

that the period of contract will be for one year but the same can also be

extended on the same terms and conditions on the basis of satisfactory

performance for another year after getting it approved from the DMER

Office. He also submitted that now the respondents have already invited

fresh tenders for the next year but the petitioner has a right to be at least

considered for the extension of one year, regarding which, it has moved an

application/representation vide Annexure P-5 dated 24.02.2025, but no

action has been taken on the same. He further submitted that its right of

being at least considered cannot be taken away in view of the aforesaid term.

4. Notice of motion to respondents No.1 & 2 only at this stage.

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 22:43:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050017-DB

CWP-10754-2025 -3-

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl. A.G.,

Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents

No.1 & 2 and states that since the learned counsel for the petitioner has

limited the scope of the present petition only to the extent of considering and

deciding its application/representation (Annexure P-5) in accordance with

law and within the stipulated period, he has no objection in case any such

direction is issued in this regard by making any time framework.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The only limited prayer of the petitioner is that in terms of the

notice inviting tender the petitioner had a right to be considered for another

term subject to satisfactory performance and subject to the discretion of the

concerned authorities and its only limited prayer is that its application which

has been moved on 24.02.2025, has not even been considered and processed

but at the same time the respondents have already invited the tenders,

regarding which, the bids are yet to be opened. Therefore, this Court is of the

considered view that it will be in the interest of justice to direct respondent

No.2 to consider and decide the aforesaid application/ representation moved

by the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 strictly in accordance with law before

finalizing the fresh tender which has been floated.

8. Needless to say that the aforesaid application has to be decided

by passing a speaking order and with due application of mind after giving an

adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner through its representative

before finalizing the fresh tender and the same shall be conveyed to the

petitioner.

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 22:43:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050017-DB

CWP-10754-2025 -4-

9. The present petition stands disposed of.

(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE

(SUMEET GOEL)
15.04.2025 JUDGE
Bhumika

1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

2. Whether reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 22:43:29 :::