JUDGMENT - GAVAI B.R., J.: - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The decision of the respondent No. 1 State Government rejecting the tender of the petitioner for the transportation of foodgrains and other goods, within the district of Akola, communicated by respondent No. 3 Additional Collector, Akola, vide communication dated 18-12-2003 and the subsequent award of the contract in favour of respondent No. 5 are the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. The facts in brief out of which the present petition arises are as under:-

The respondent No. 3, Additional Collector, Akola vide tender notice dated 26-8-2003, invited tenders for awarding contract for inter district and intra-district transportation of foodgrains, in Akola District, under the public distribution system, implemented by the respondent No. 1, for the period from 1-9-2003 to 31-5-2006. In response to the aforesaid tender notice, bids of four duly qualified bidders were opened. The rates quoted by these four bidders are as under:--

i) Atlas Transport Company (petitioner) : 14% below the base rate.

ii) Krishna Kumar Gokulchand : 250% above the base rate.

iii) Shamshuddhin Yusuf Ali : 277% above the base rate.

iv) N.L. Paldewar : 288% above the base rate.

From the above rates, it can be seen that the difference between the rates quoted by the petitioner and the second lowest bidder is 264%.

4. The Additional Collector, Akola addressed a communication dated 20-9-2003, to the petitioner, thereby requiring the petitioner to submit the details regarding the expenditure, which was likely to be incurred by the petitioner on every trip for carrying the goods under the tender. The said information was directed to be submitted on or before 23-9-2003. Vide communication dated 23-9-2003, the petitioner sent his reply to the Additional Collector and informed him that since the rates quoted by him are competive and since it is the business secret, the details cannot be supplied. However, vide the said communication, the petitioner informed the Additional Collector, that the said rates are quoted after taking into consideration all the commercial aspects and assured that the work under the tender would be carried on with utmost competence.

5. In the meantime, the petitioner also addressed a communication dated 7-10-2003, to the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. It was stated in the said communication, that though the rates quoted by the petitioner were the lowest, he was not yet awarded the contract. It was also pointed out that the rates quoted by the petitioner were lower than the ones, at which the contractor, who was previously awarded contract, was working and as such, there was substantial loss to the revenue. The petitioner had, therefore, requested to immediately call the petitioner for signing the contract.

6. It appears, that, though the petitioner had earlier refused to give the rate analysis, vide communication dated 14-10-2003, he submitted the breakup of the rates and explained the feasibility of the rates quoted by him. It is further pointed out in the said communication, that the rates quoted by the petitioner were comparable with the rates at which the contract was awarded for the period of three years, i.e. 2003-06 in Washim, Thane, Gondia and Parbhani districts.

7. It appears, that, there was certain correspondence, between the State of Maharashtra and the Additional Collector on the subject-matter. Vide communication dated 31-10-2003, the State Government directed the Additional Collector, Akola, to give his explanation on certain points raised in the said communication. However, by fax communication dated 18-12-2003, the respondent State Government, informed the Additional Collector, Akola that since the rates of the petitioner were not workable and since there were 5 criminal cases pending against the petitioner, an information was sought from the petitioner. It is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document