Balaji Goods Transport Company, Through it's Proprietor: Vijay vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(Bom) 18

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
Balaji Goods Transport Company, Through it's Proprietor: Vijay & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 569 of 2013, 980 of 2013, 981 of 2013 & 1043 of 2013 With Civil Application Nos. 1857 of 2013, 2956 of 2013 & 2958 of 2013
Decided On: 07-01-2014

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Kamlesh P. Mali, P.S. Dani, J.G. Reddy, R.B. Raghuvanshi, Mrs. Rutuja Ambedkar, Kiran Kandpile, Nigel Quaraishy, Dhananjay B. Deshmukh, Abhijeet A. Joshi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:P.B. Darandale, AGP, A.A. Kumbhakoni, Special Counsel, R3, S.B. Talekar a/w N.R. Bubna, Ajay Patil, Advocates.

Headnote:Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 39(b) and 39(c) - Conditions of tender. - Tender condition of entrusting entire of distribution of essential commodities through Public Distribution System, it single contractor of minimum experience of 3 years and financial capacity neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. - There is no infirmity much less of any serious nature in the decision to engage a single contractor and for a period of three years. That is a matter which the State is free to decide and determine. By that itself and without anything more one cannot infer that the existing contractors or their continuation is looked after and facilitated by the State.
       The policy cannot be said to be suffering from such infirmities as would invite interference by Court. Far from infringing the mandate of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, this Government Resolution read in its entirety indicates that for smooth and effective implementation of the scheme the Government has decided to employ and engage only one contractor for transportation of the essential commodities from the Food Corporation of India godowns to the Fair Price Shops.
       Mere experience in transportation alone is not sufficient, therefore, the criteria of financial capacity has been rightly evolved. That mandates production of certificate from the Chartered Accountant.
       The bidder has to produce such certificate and which would evidence that his turnover for the past three years is equivalent to the expenses incurred for transportation of food grains in the last three years. This would assure the State that the bidder has a sufficient financial and asset base so as to be in a position to undertake the contract work for a period of three years. In the absence of such proof, it will not be possible to gauge financial capacity.
       It is not for the Court to decide what terms and conditions ought to be inserted in the tender notice. It is a matter to be decided essentially by the Authorities. They are competent to take such decisions because of their knowledge and experience in the field. It is they who have to manage a huge task of distribution of essential commodities through the Public Distribution System. The persons who have evolved and are implement ing such schemes are the best judges of the situation at the ground level. If they find that multiple contractors are not able to handle the transportation work because of lack of coordination or otherwise, then, their wisdom to stipulate the condition of a single contractor for the entire work cannot be questioned. Similarly, if they evolve certain terms and conditions in order to ensure efficient and proper working of the contract, then, equally that cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible.
       Finally, the condition with regard to the provision of the Bank guarantee is also in consonance with the requirement earlier stipulated, namely, financial capacity. One who can furnish a guarantee from a nationalized Bank or scheduled bank to the extent of Rs. 41 lacs is taken as contractor or bidder with some resources at his command. The measure or indicator stipulated in this condition cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust at all.
       None of the conditions can be said to be suffering from the vice of the arbitrariness, discrimination, unreasonableness, unfairness or are of such nature having no nexus or connection with the object and purpose sought to be achieved. The State actions are not vitiated by mala fides either.

Judgment

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1 All these petitions involve common questions of fact and law. Common arguments were canvassed by both sides. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We have taken the facts from only one of the petitions, namely, Writ Petition No.1043/2013.

3. These Petitions have been brought from the Nagpur and Aurangabad Benches of this Court for being heard along with the petitions pending at the Principal Seat in terms of the order dated 23.01.2013. After they were so brought and consolidated that they have been placed before our Bench.

4. The Petitioners in these petitions are Transporters and are engaged in the business of transportation of various goods and commodities. They are either partnership or proprietary firms. They claim to have undertaken transportation work for the Government, Semi Government Corporations and statutory bodies. They claim to have experience in transportation of essential commodities as well. They further claim that they have undertaken transportation work for the Public Distribution System. It is stated in the writ petitions that initially the State Government came with a policy of “Door Step Delivery Scheme” and accordingly, the Government Resolution dated 29.03.2001 was issued by the State Government, copy of which is at Annexure B to Writ Petition No.1043/2013 from which the facts have been taken.

5. It is alleged that though this scheme envisaged Door Step Delivery from the Food Corporation of India godowns directly to the Fair Price Shops, it did not function properly. By the Government Resolution dated 25.10.2005 (Annexure C) this scheme was stopped completely. The allegation is that the Government is trying to reintroduce the scheme by the Government Resolutions dated 23.02.2012 and 26.11.2012. The extra work which is now to be performed would be to deliver the essential commodities from the Food Corporation of India godowns to the Government godowns and from the Government godowns to the Fair Price Shops. It is alleged that the State Government and the Central Government have various schemes for distribution of essential commodities and that such distribution through the Public Distribution System contemplates engagement of contractors by the Government for the above mentioned transportation work. Any other work will also be required to be undertaken if so prescribed.

6. The Petitioners allege that due to failure of Door Step Delivery Scheme, since 2005 onwards the work of Public Distribution System was done in two phases, namely, essential commodities were to be lifted from the Food Corporation of India godowns to the Government godowns in each taluka place. The second phase was that the Fair Price Shop owners used to lift their quota from the Government godowns situate at taluka places. As far as the tribal area is concerned, the work of distribution to all Fair Price Shops was done through the State Marketing Federation. In the first phase, the contractor was required to transport the essential commodities from the Food Corporation of India godowns to the Government godowns. The said work was to be completed within 50 days. However, almost 90% of the contractors could not complete this work of transportation.

7. The Petitioners allege that the Minister of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra has written a letter dated 23.04.2009 to the Principal Secretary that in many districts the allotted quota has lapsed for one reason or other. Therefore, the action should be taken against the concerned persons. The Government has issued the circular dated 18.10.2010 directing expedition of incomplete steps or work. The Petitioners have also sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but what is alleged is that the information provided is not complete. The information was sought as to how much of the work which is allotted and particularly in the first phase of transportation of essential commodities from the Food Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(Bom) 18

Cases Referred (9)