IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No. 6256 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 14.7.2009
Rattan Lal ......Petitioner
Vs.
Punjab State Department of Food Supply and others.
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
PRESENT: Ms. Pinky Bangarh, Advocate for
Mr.Mandeep K.Sajjan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 5.
Mr.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
****
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 6.4.2009 cancelling
the contract awarded to the petitioner and for allowing the petitioner to
carry out the work.
2. In pursuance of tender notice for giving labour work for loading
and unloading of goods and articles for the year 2009-10, the petitioner
submitted his tender. The petitioner quoted rate of 57% below the scheduled
rates and deposited a sum of Rs.39,000/-. On 30.3.2009, the tenders were
opened and the petitioner was declared successful. He completed all the
formalities and also deposited security of Rs.54,000/-. He also signed the
agreement for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. However, he was not
allowed to work and received a letter dated 6.4.2009 to the effect that the
work allotted to him had been cancelled and allotted to respondent No.6.
The bid of respondent No.6 was 20% above the scheduled rates.
3. On 27.4.2009, the following order was passed:
C.W.P.No. 6256 of 2009 [2]
“Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner
has impugned the order dated 6.4.2009 (Annexure
P-5) vide which the tender allotted to the
petitioner Rattan Lal has been unilaterally
cancelled by the respondents without issuing any
notice to the petitioner, as also, without affording
him any opportunity of hearing to him. And that
the tender has been allotted to respondent No.6
without allowing the petitioner to participate in
any negotiating process.
Notice of motion for 13.5.2009.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned
order dated 6.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) shall remain
stayed.”
4. In the reply filed by District Controller, Food Civil Supplies
and Consumer Affairs, Ferozepur, on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the
stand taken is that the rate of the petitioner being lower to the scheduled
rates, was not economically viable and on that ground the tenders were
recalled and the work was allotted to respondent No.6.
5. The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation apart from taking
the stand that the offer of the petitioner was economically un-viable has
stated that the petitioner never submitted his tender on 3.4.2009 and fresh
tenders were called and respondent No.6 being a lowest tenderer, his tender
was accepted.
C.W.P.No. 6256 of 2009 [3]
6. There is nothing to show that any public notice was given or
opportunity was given to any other competitor.
7. We have dealt with the same issue in another petition being
C.W.P.No.6919 of 2009 ((Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and
others) decided today and held that allotment of work to the respondent by
private negotiation and without giving opportunity to all eligible persons
was illegal. For the same reasons, the impugned order dated 6.4.2009
cannot be sustained.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is
quashed. It is, however, made clear that the work already executed by
respondent No.6 or by anyone else till date, will not be effected. The
respondents will be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
July 14, 2009 JUDGE
raghav
Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ……..Yes/No