Gurmit Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Gurmit Singh, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a tender dated 21.09.2021, awarded to respondents 5 and 6. This was not the petitioner's first attempt; he had previously filed CWP-PIL-43-2022 challenging similar issues, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.03.2022 with liberty to pursue representations. The respondents' reply indicated that financial bids for work worth approximately Rs. 5 crores were opened on 21.09.2021, and three contractors were shortlisted with different GST numbers. Respondent No. 4, the Municipal Corporation, stated that work orders amounting to Rs. 4,98,00,000/- were issued to respondents 5 and 6, and they had completed 97% of the allocated work. Another PIL, CWP-25928-2021, filed by Harmit Singh Sidhu challenging the work allotment, was also dismissed as withdrawn on 20.12.2021. The current petition was filed approximately one year after the work was allotted.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation, was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on several cumulative factors. Firstly, the development work in question had already been substantially completed, with affidavits indicating 90% to 97% completion by the allotted contractors. Secondly, the petitioner had approached the High Court approximately one year after the work had been allotted, and after his earlier PIL was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue representations. The Court noted that the petitioner's representation had been answered. The Court concluded that the manner in which the petitioner sought to challenge the allotment through a series of litigations did not make out a case for public interest litigation. Therefore, the Court found it was not a fit case to proceed further.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition, filed in the form of a Public Interest Litigation, is maintainable given the petitioner's prior litigation and the substantial completion of the development work. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to set aside the tender dated 21.09.2021, implying a challenge to the allotment process. The specific grounds for challenging the tender were not detailed in the provided text, but the prayer was to set aside the allotment. The petitioner had previously pursued a representation after his earlier petition was withdrawn. Respondent's contention: The respondents argued that the work was substantially completed (90% to 97%) and that the petitioner had approached the court after a significant delay, approximately one year after the work was allotted. They also highlighted that similar challenges by other parties had been dismissed or withdrawn. The respondents asserted that the allotment was as per the prevalent procedure and requirements of the municipalities, with three companies with different GST numbers being shortlisted.