High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 09 P&H CK 0283

Super Chemicals vs State of Punjab and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 21 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J · Adarsh Kumar Goel, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.P. No. 16926 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 269 words

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This petition seeks quashing of tender condition incorporated in the Schedule of terms and conditions annexed to Tender Notice dated 14.5.2009, Annexure P-2, for supply of laboratory chemicals. The condition which is sought to be challenged is as under:

1.

Only original manufacturers are eligible to quote rates against this tender and should have in-house NABL own laboratory. Tender submitted by dealers agents or middlemen on the behalf of their principal manufacturers will be rejected outrightly.

2.

According to the petitioner, the condition created a monopoly in favour of a manufacturer and the requirement had no nexus with the supply of chemicals. Apart from the settled legal position that tender conditions cannot be challenged except on the ground of illegality or irrationality, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, and Global Energy Ltd. and Another Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Others, we find that the petitioner has not put forward its objections sought to be raised in this petition to the concerned respondent which is required to be done before seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus. In absence thereof, we cannot adjudicate on the issue on merits.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a view to approach respondent No. 2 by way of a representation.

4.

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn accordingly. If such a representation is made within one week from today, decision thereon may be taken by respondent No. 2 within one week thereafter. This order may not be treated as expression of any opinion on merits.