CWP-18754 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 129 M/S PRO LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. Constitution of India an amount of Rs.4 lakhs deposited by petitioner as bid security, along with interest at the rate of 18% per 2. participated in two tenders and each tender. period of 180 days from the date of It has been specifically validity period 18754-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/S PRO LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Mr. Kshitiz Goel, Advocate and Mr. Krishan Kanha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Vashisth, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. *** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. This petition has been filed Constitution of India for writ of mandamus to an amount of Rs.4 lakhs deposited by petitioner as bid security, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Pleaded case of petitioner, a private limited company participated in two tenders and deposited a bid security of Rs. tender. Online bids opened on 31.12. period of 180 days from the date of opening, which expired on 29 It has been specifically averred that no contrac y period, nor was the validity of the bid extended. Conditional letters -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18754-2026 Date of decision:20.07.2026 M/S PRO LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED ...PETITIONER VERSUS ...RESPONDENTS SUVIR SEHGAL DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Mr. Kshitiz Goel, Advocate and Mr. Krishan Kanha, Advocate Haryana, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Advocate, This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the writ of mandamus to direct respondents to refund an amount of Rs.4 lakhs deposited by petitioner as bid security, along with a private limited company, is that it deposited a bid security of Rs.2 lakhs for .12.2015 and remained valid for a opening, which expired on 29.06.2016. that no contract was executed within the the validity of the bid extended. Conditional letters 26 227 of the direct respondents to refund an amount of Rs.4 lakhs deposited by petitioner as bid security, along with is that it lakhs for 2015 and remained valid for a 2016. t was executed within the the validity of the bid extended. Conditional letters SHEETAL 2026.07.31 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-18754 of acceptance were issued by respondents P-6, respectively, guarantee along with some documents. Petitioner replied 22.08.2016, expired and it was no longer interested in the made for refund of bid security. 20.10.2016 issued a show petitioner as to why penal action such as forfeiture of earnest security and detailed reply representations P-18, respectively. 3. responded bid amount. It is his contention that without any justification and the security amount should with interest. who have opposed the petition on ground of delay. 4. book, this unexplained petitioner arose in the year 2016 as b conditional acceptance letter was issued notice proposing categorically refused to proceed with the contract and demanded refund 18754-2026 of acceptance were issued by respondents respectively, requiring petitioner to guarantee along with some documents. Petitioner replied 2016, Annexures P-7 and P-8, respectively, expired and it was no longer interested in the made for refund of bid security. Thereafter, p 20.10.2016, Annexures P-9 and P-10, respectively, issued a show cause notice dated 02.11.2016, petitioner as to why penal action such as forfeiture of earnest and blacklisting should not be detailed reply on 18.11.2016, Annexure representations between 12.09.2017 and respectively. Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents never responded to any of representations or legal notice and have refused to return bid amount. It is his contention that respondents cannot retain the amount without any justification and the security amount should with interest. On advance notice, respondents are represented by counsel, who have opposed the petition on ground of delay. Having heard counsel for the this Court finds that present petition suffers from gross, inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. It is an admitted position that titioner arose in the year 2016 as bid validity expired on 29.06. conditional acceptance letter was issued proposing forfeiture was issued on categorically refused to proceed with the contract and demanded refund -2- of acceptance were issued by respondents on 16.07.2016, Annexures P-5 and requiring petitioner to furnish a performance bank guarantee along with some documents. Petitioner replied vide letters dated respectively, that bid validity had expired and it was no longer interested in the contract. Request was also Thereafter, petitioner sent reminders dated respectively, however, respondents 2016, Annexure P-11, calling upon petitioner as to why penal action such as forfeiture of earnest money/ be initiated. Petitioner submitted a Annexure P-12, and thereafter sent various and 15.12.2020, Annexures P-13 to etitioner contends that respondents never to any of representations or legal notice and have refused to return respondents cannot retain the amount without any justification and the security amount should be refunded along otice, respondents are represented by counsel, who have opposed the petition on ground of delay. for the parties and perusing the paper ourt finds that present petition suffers from gross, inordinate and It is an admitted position that grievance of id validity expired on 29.06.2016. A conditional acceptance letter was issued on 06.07.2016 and a show cause forfeiture was issued on 02.11.2016. Petitioner categorically refused to proceed with the contract and demanded refund 5 and performance bank letters dated that bid validity had also dated respondents calling upon money/bid Petitioner submitted a and thereafter sent various 13 to etitioner contends that respondents never to any of representations or legal notice and have refused to return respondents cannot retain the amount be refunded along otice, respondents are represented by counsel, and perusing the paper ourt finds that present petition suffers from gross, inordinate and grievance of 2016. A cause etitioner categorically refused to proceed with the contract and demanded refund of SHEETAL 2026.07.31 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-18754 security deposit. various representations and filed demonstrates cause of action arose. 5. placing reliance upon representations allegedly sent to respondents between 2017 and 2020. representations A litigant cannot writ court expecting relief merely because the authorities. Even if last representation, which is in 15.12.2020, and unexplained silence for over five years before approaching Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary remedy Court declines to exercise its discretion in favo shown lethargy 6. solely on the the merits of petitioner's 20.07.2026 sheetal 18754-2026 security deposit. Instead of taking recourse to legal remedy, various representations and filed the instant petition demonstrates a staggering delay of nearly a decade from the date cause of action arose. Petitioner has attempted to explain the prolonged delay by reliance upon representations allegedly sent to respondents between 2017 and 2020. It is a well-settled proposition of law that submitting representations neither extends the period of A litigant cannot sleep over his rights for a decade and then approach the writ court expecting relief merely because authorities. Law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. ven if last representation, which is in 2020, Annexure P-18, is taken into account, there is still an absolute and unexplained silence for over five years before approaching jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary remedy, which cannot be invoked at ourt declines to exercise its discretion in favo lethargy in pursuing its legal remed For the foregoing reason, present writ solely on the ground of delay and laches, without the merits of petitioner's claim. .2026 (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -3- taking recourse to legal remedy, petitioner sent instant petition in the year 2026. This a staggering delay of nearly a decade from the date when Petitioner has attempted to explain the prolonged delay by reliance upon representations allegedly sent to respondents between settled proposition of law that submitting the period of limitation nor it justifies laches. rights for a decade and then approach the writ court expecting relief merely because it was sending communication aw assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. ven if last representation, which is in shape of legal notice dated is taken into account, there is still an absolute and unexplained silence for over five years before approaching this Court. jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary and which cannot be invoked at whim and fancy. This ourt declines to exercise its discretion in favour of a litigant, who has in pursuing its legal remedy. present writ petition is dismissed ches, without expressing any opinion on (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No sent This the Petitioner has attempted to explain the prolonged delay by reliance upon representations allegedly sent to respondents between settled proposition of law that submitting laches. rights for a decade and then approach the sending communication to aw assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. legal notice dated is taken into account, there is still an absolute ourt. discretionary and This who has petition is dismissed expressing any opinion on ) SHEETAL 2026.07.31 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh