IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.8075 of 2009
Date of decision: 7.7.2009
Sat Sahib and Company.
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Food Corporation of India & others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
-----
ORDER:
1. This petition seeks quashing of award of
transportation contract by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to
respondent No.3.
2. Case of the petitioner is that vide notice dated
7.2.2009, Tender Notice was issued for appointment of regular
contractors for handling and transportation and long route road
transportation for a period of two years. The petitioner was
CWP No.8075 of 2009 2
among one of the tenderers. However, the contract has been
awarded to respondent No.3.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that rates quoted by the
petitioner were lower but the same were not properly evaluated.
In para 4 of the petition, following chart has been given:-
"Petitioner Respondent
15% ASOR 60%
39% ASOR 70%
90% ASOR 82%
80% ASOR 50% to Rajasthan 89%
All over India
Petitioner Respondent
75% 125%
1% 27%
51% 79%
43% 57%
At par Labour 200%"
4. It has been argued that respondent No.3 quoted
higher labour rate and also mentioned separate rates for
Rajasthan, which were not provided in the form. The same were
taken into account and tender has been allotted for transportation
in Rajasthan.
5. Stand of the FCI is that the evaluation was proper.
The petitioner did not tick any of the three options in the format
for quoting labour rates i.e. at schedule of rates, above the
schedule of rates or below the schedule of rates and therefore,
the tender submitted by the petitioner was defective and in the
evaluation, claim of the petitioner that rates quoted by him may be
treated at par with the schedule of rates, could not be accepted.
It is further submitted that respondent No.3 being even otherwise
CWP No.8075 of 2009 3
eligible to be given the contract, mere quoting of rates for
Rajasthan for transportation, did not render it disqualified.
6. We have perused the tender form submitted by the
petitioner. The petitioner has not ticked any of the three options.
In these circumstances, the view taken by the FCI could be a
possible view.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
rates quoted by the petitioner would work out to Rs.4 crores lower
than the rates quoted by respondent No.3 and there could be
extraneous considerations in awarding of the contract.
8. If it is so, the petitioner can take it up at appropriate
level.
9. The petition is disposed of.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
July 07, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE