CWP-187754-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH 129 CWP-18754-2026 Date of decision:20.07.20266 M/S PROO LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED ...PETITIONER VERSUSS STATE OOF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAMM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DDEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Mr. Kshitiz Goel, Advocate annd Mr. Krishan Kanha, Advocatee for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Vashisth, DAG, HHaryana, for respondent No.1. Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Advocatee, for respondents No.2 and 3. *** SUVIR SSEHGAL, J. 1. This petition has been fileed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutiion of India for writ of mandammus to direct respondents to refuund an amounnt of Rs.4 lakhs deposited by peetitioner as bid security, along withw interest att the rate of 18% per annum. 2. Pleaded case of petitioner, aa private limited company, is thaat it participateed in two tenders and depositeed a bid security of Rs.2 lakhs for each tendder. Online bids opened on 31.12.2015 and remained valid foor a period of 180 days from the date of openning, which expired on 29.06.20016. It has beeen specifically averred that no contract was executed within the SHEETAL validity p eriod, nor was the validity of thhe bid extended. Conditional lettters 2026.07.31 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-187754-2026 -2-

of acceptaance were issued by respondentss on 16.07.2016, Annexures P-5 anda P-6, resppectively, requiring petitioner to furnish a performance baank guaranteee along with some documents. PPetitioner replied vide letters daated 22.08.20116, Annexures P-7 and P-8, r espectively, that bid validity hadh expired aand it was no longer interested in the contract. Request was alsoa made for refund of bid security. Thereaftfter, petitioner sent reminders daated 20.10.20116, Annexures P-9 and P-10, rrespectively, however, respondeents issued a sshow cause notice dated 02.11.22016, Annexure P-11, calling uppon petitionerr as to why penal action such aas forfeiture of earnest money//bid security aand blacklisting should not bee initiated. Petitioner submittedd a detailed rreply on 18.11.2016, Annexuree P-12, and thereafter sent various representaations between 12.09.2017 andd 15.12.2020, Annexures P-133 to P-18, resppectively. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents neever respondedd to any of representations or leggal notice and have refused to retturn bid amouunt. It is his contention that resppondents cannot retain the amoount without aany justification and the securityy amount should be refunded aloong with interrest. On advance notice, responndents are represented by counnsel, who havee opposed the petition on ground of delay.

4. Having heard counsel for thhe parties and perusing the paaper book, thiss Court finds that present petitionn suffers from gross, inordinate anda unexplainned delay and laches. It is an aadmitted position that grievancee of petitionerr arose in the year 2016 as bid validity expired on 29.06.2016. A conditionaal acceptance letter was issuedd on 06.07.2016 and a show caause notice pproposing forfeiture was isssued on 02.11.2016. Petitiooner SHEETAL categoricaally refused to proceed with thee contract and demanded refundd of 2026.07.31 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-187754-2026 -3- security ddeposit. Instead of taking recourrse to legal remedy, petitioner sents various reepresentations and filed the insttant petition in the year 2026. ThisT demonstraates a staggering delay of nearlyy a decade from the date when the cause of aaction arose.

5. Petitioner has attempted too explain the prolonged delay by placing reeliance upon representations alleegedly sent to respondents between 2017 andd 2020. It is a well-settled prroposition of law that submittting representaations neither extends the periodd of limitation nor it justifies lachhes. A litigantt cannot sleep over his rights foor a decade and then approach the writ courtt expecting relief merely becausse it was sending communicationn to the authorrities. Law assists the vigilant, noot those who sleep over their righhts. Even if last representation, which is in shape of legal notice daated 15.12.20220, Annexure P-18, is taken intoo account, there is still an absollute and unexpplained silence for over five yeears before approaching this Court. Writ jurissdiction under Article 226 of thee Constitution is a discretionary anda extraordinnary remedy, which cannot be invoked at whim and fancy. ThisT Court decclines to exercise its discretionn in favour of a litigant, who has shown letthargy in pursuing its legal remeddy. 6. For the foregoing reason, ppresent writ petition is dismisssed solely on the ground of delay and laches, without expressing any opinionn on the meritss of petitioner's claim. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 20.07.2026 (DDEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)) sheetal JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yees/No Whether Reportable Yees/No SHEETAL 2026.07.31 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-187754-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGGARH 129 CWP-18754-2026 Date of decision:20.07.20266 M/S PROO LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED ...PETITIONER VERSUSS STATE OOF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAMM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DDEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Mr. Kshitiz Goel, Advocate annd Mr. Krishan Kanha, Advocatee for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Vashisth, DAG, HHaryana, for respondent No.1. Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Advocatee, for respondents No.2 and 3. *** SUVIR SSEHGAL, J. 1. This petition has been fileed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutiion of India for writ of mandammus to direct respondents to refuund an amounnt of Rs.4 lakhs deposited by peetitioner as bid security, along withw interest att the rate of 18% per annum. 2. Pleaded case of petitioner, aa private limited company, is thaat it participateed in two tenders and depositeed a bid security of Rs.2 lakhs for each tendder. Online bids opened on 31.12.2015 and remained valid foor a period of 180 days from the date of openning, which expired on 29.06.20016. It has beeen specifically averred that no contract was executed within the SHEETAL validity p eriod, nor was the validity of thhe bid extended. Conditional lettters 2026.07.31 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-187754-2026 -2-

of acceptaance were issued by respondentss on 16.07.2016, Annexures P-5 anda P-6, resppectively, requiring petitioner to furnish a performance baank guaranteee along with some documents. PPetitioner replied vide letters daated 22.08.20116, Annexures P-7 and P-8, r espectively, that bid validity hadh expired aand it was no longer interested in the contract. Request was alsoa made for refund of bid security. Thereaftfter, petitioner sent reminders daated 20.10.20116, Annexures P-9 and P-10, rrespectively, however, respondeents issued a sshow cause notice dated 02.11.22016, Annexure P-11, calling uppon petitionerr as to why penal action such aas forfeiture of earnest money//bid security aand blacklisting should not bee initiated. Petitioner submittedd a detailed rreply on 18.11.2016, Annexuree P-12, and thereafter sent various representaations between 12.09.2017 andd 15.12.2020, Annexures P-133 to P-18, resppectively. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents neever respondedd to any of representations or leggal notice and have refused to retturn bid amouunt. It is his contention that resppondents cannot retain the amoount without aany justification and the securityy amount should be refunded aloong with interrest. On advance notice, responndents are represented by counnsel, who havee opposed the petition on ground of delay.

4. Having heard counsel for thhe parties and perusing the paaper book, thiss Court finds that present petitionn suffers from gross, inordinate anda unexplainned delay and laches. It is an aadmitted position that grievancee of petitionerr arose in the year 2016 as bid validity expired on 29.06.2016. A conditionaal acceptance letter was issuedd on 06.07.2016 and a show caause notice pproposing forfeiture was isssued on 02.11.2016. Petitiooner SHEETAL categoricaally refused to proceed with thee contract and demanded refundd of 2026.07.31 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-187754-2026 -3- security ddeposit. Instead of taking recourrse to legal remedy, petitioner sents various reepresentations and filed the insttant petition in the year 2026. ThisT demonstraates a staggering delay of nearlyy a decade from the date when the cause of aaction arose.

5. Petitioner has attempted too explain the prolonged delay by placing reeliance upon representations alleegedly sent to respondents between 2017 andd 2020. It is a well-settled prroposition of law that submittting representaations neither extends the periodd of limitation nor it justifies lachhes. A litigantt cannot sleep over his rights foor a decade and then approach the writ courtt expecting relief merely becausse it was sending communicationn to the authorrities. Law assists the vigilant, noot those who sleep over their righhts. Even if last representation, which is in shape of legal notice daated 15.12.20220, Annexure P-18, is taken intoo account, there is still an absollute and unexpplained silence for over five yeears before approaching this Court. Writ jurissdiction under Article 226 of thee Constitution is a discretionary anda extraordinnary remedy, which cannot be invoked at whim and fancy. ThisT Court decclines to exercise its discretionn in favour of a litigant, who has shown letthargy in pursuing its legal remeddy. 6. For the foregoing reason, ppresent writ petition is dismisssed solely on the ground of delay and laches, without expressing any opinionn on the meritss of petitioner's claim. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 20.07.2026 (DDEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)) sheetal JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yees/No Whether Reportable Yees/No SHEETAL 2026.07.31 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh