HC paves way for allotment of parking areas in city

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 22

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed a petition, whereby the process of allotting 25 parking areas through an e-tender process had hit a roadblock. Acting on a petition filed by one of the bidders, the High Court had in March restrained the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh from creating “any third party rights”.

As the issue came up for resumed hearing today, the Bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain turned down the petition filed against the Municipal Corporation by the LRY Labour Contractor. Appearing before the Bench, the counsel among other things had contended that the petitioner was the highest bidder for the e-tender process for 25 parking areas offered by the Municipal Corporation.

The Bench was also told that the advertisement for the same was issued on September 16, 2016, on its website. But the petitioner’s tender was cancelled for administrative reasons without disclosing the same.

The court was also told that cancellation purportedly due to administrative reasons was result of mala fide and colourable exercise of power. The petitioner fulfilled the criteria. After being successful in the tender process, it was liable to be allotted 25 parking lots initially for three years and extendable up to five years.

The counsel had added the cancellation move without assigning reasons was “against all canons of justice in as much as the petitioner was not even called or served with any orders to justify the action of the respondent in cancelling the tender”.

He had added: “The petitioner has learnt that with the change of Mayor, there is a change of heart in the Municipal Corporation and now the fresh advertisements are being issued which are tailor-made to suit the candidates those who are close to the corridors of power….

“The order is illegal and arbitrary as the same does not support any valid reason for rejecting the highest bidder. The records and the documents present along with this writ petition would show that every attempt was made by the respondent to find fault with the eligibility of the petitioner….”

What court was told

The Bench was also told that the advertisement for the same was issued on September 16, 2016, on its website. But the petitioner’s tender was cancelled for administrative reasons without disclosing the same. The court was also told that cancellation purportedly due to administrative reasons was result of mala fide and colourable exercise of power. The petitioner fulfilled the criteria. After being successful in the tender process, it was liable to be allotted 25 parking lots initially for three years and extendable up to five years.