Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Deepak Gupta, Sanjay K. Agrawal, JJ.
Ram Kumar Yadav, son of Shri Ram Sanehi Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1628, 1529, 1567 & 1693 of 2016
Decided On : 18-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shri Raj Kamal Singh, Shri Kishore Bhaduri
For the Respondents: Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, Shri C.J.K. Rao, Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Shri Vivek Shrivastava
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Relating to fulfillment of conditions - Transportation of food-grains - Deposit of earnest money - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited floated tenders as “Dwar Praday Parivahan Karya (D.P.T.)” basically for transportation of food-grains. These tenders were to be submitted through Internet. In all the four cases, the dispute relates to the deposit of earnest money. The grievance of the Petitioners is that as per Clause 4 of the conditions of the tender document, every tenderer was required to submit documents in support of his tender and all these documents were required to be self attested and were also to be notarized by a public Notary. The opening part of Clause 4 of the tender conditions provides that the person submitting the tender was required to submit a photo copy of the documents mentioned therein. These documents should have been self attested and notarised by a public Notary and thereafter had to be uploaded onto the website. Reliance has been placed on Clause 4 of the tender conditions – Held, Applying the same principles, we are clearly of the view that the intention of Clause 4 especially Clause 4.7 of the tender conditions is that the security amount is deposited. The submission of Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Petitioners in this regard is that even now the Respondents/Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited has not stated that the amount in question has been deposited in its bank account or not, and on the date when the bid was submitted, there was no proof that the security amount had been deposited in the bank account of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. We are not impressed with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners - Online RTGS payment is still a new form of payment and some people are not very familiar with the same. Sometimes, RTGS payment is not directly done through the Internet, but is done through a bank. In the present case, the RTGS payment has been done through a bank, i.e., the security amount has been deposited in the bank account of the beneficiary/the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. An E-Receipt will normally not be available with a tenderer making payment of the security deposit in a bank for transfer of the same to the bank account of the beneficiary through RTGS because the bank will only give him a bankers receipt and an E-Receipt will only be available with a tenderer if he directly makes/transfers the payment of the security deposit through online RTGS payment - Second reason is that online RTGS payment, by its very nature, is a system where within a few hours within the same banking day if transactions are done at a particular time the money is transferred to the beneficiarys bank account. This avoids any monetary transaction or paper work and since this system is only developing at this stage, even if there be any delay in transfer, it is not attributable to the person who submitted the tender, but to the bank with which the amount was deposited and the same would not make the tender informal or invalid - Writ petitions dismissed
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. These four writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment because the issue involved in all the four petitions relating to fulfillment of conditions of tender is common and similar.
2. The Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited floated tenders as “Dwar Praday Parivahan Karya (D.P.T.)” basically for transportation of food-grains. These tenders were to be submitted through Internet. In all the four cases, the dispute relates to the deposit of earnest money. The grievance of the Petitioners is that as per Clause 4 of the conditions of the tender document, every tenderer was required to submit documents in support of his tender and all these documents were required to be self attested and were also to be notarized by a public Notary. The opening part of Clause 4 of the tender conditions provides that the person submitting the tender was required to submit a photo copy of the documents mentioned therein. These documents should have been self attested and notarised by a public Notary and thereafter had to be uploaded onto the website. Reliance has been placed on Clause 4 of the tender conditions, which runs thus:-
^^4- VsDuhdy chM ds lkFk vfuok;Zr% layXu fd, tkus okys nLrkost@lgi= %&
fufonkdkj dks VsDuhdy chM ds lkFk fuEufyf[kr nLrkostksa dh Nk;kizfr] Lo;a gLrk{kj djus ds mijkar] uksVjh ls lR;kfir gks] psd fyLV vuqlkj viyksM djuk vfuok;Z gksxk] buesa ls fdlh Hkh nLrkost ds vHkko esa fufonk vLohdkj dj nh tkosxhA
4-1 Js.kh & , ds ifjogu dk;Z gsrq 04 ¼pkj½] Js.kh&ch ds ifjogu dk;Z gsrq 03 ¼rhu½] ,oa Js.kh & lh ds ifjogu dk;Z gsrq 02 ¼nks½ Hkkjh eky okgu ¼Vªd½ ¼,p-th-Ogh-½ dh {ks=h; ifjogu vf/kdkjh }kjk ¼lwpuk] fnukad ls fufonk fnukad rd dh vof/k dk½ tkjh okgu dh fooj.k (Vehicle Particular's) dh lR;kfir izfr ftlesa fQVusl] VSDl ,oa chek dh oS|rk mYysf[kr gksA fufonkdkj dsoy 02 gh cl fMiks ls lacaf/kr fodkl[kaM dh nj izLrqr djsxk] 02 ls vf/kd cl fMiks dh nj izLrqr djus ij fufonk fujLr dh tk ldrh gSA
4-2 bade VsDl fjVuZ ¼uohure½ rFkk iSu dkMZ dh lR;kfir izfrA
4-3 QeZ dk iath;u izek.k i=A Hkkxhnkjh QeZ gksus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkxhnkjh foys[k] daiuh gksus ij eseksjs.Me vkWQ ,lksfl;s'ku ,.M vkfVZdYl ¼izekf.kr lR; izfrfyfi½A
4-4 QeZ@daiuh dh vksj ls fufonk esa gLrk{kj djus okys O;fDr dk vf/kdkj i=@eq[R;kjukek ¼uksVjh }kjk lR;kfir½A
4-5 }kj iznk; ifjogu dk dk;Z cl fMiks ls lacaf/kr laHkkx ds gh fuoklh fufonkdkj dks fn;k tkuk gSA vr% fufonk ds lkFk fuoklh izek.k i= gsrq ftyk iz'kklu }kjk izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k izek.k i= ¼Lo;a ds uke ls½ fufonk nLrkost ds lkFk layXu djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA
4-6 fufonkdj@QeZ jkbZl feyj ugha gksus ,oa vuqcaf/kr vof/k rd dksbZ jkbZl fey yht@LokfeRo esa ugha ysus rFkk bl fuxe] ,QlhvkbZ] lhMCY;wlh] ,lMCY;wlh ,oa ekdZQsM laLFkk esa ¼fiNys 03 o"kksZa½ Cysd fyLVsM@izfrcaf/kr ugha gksus dk 'kiFk i= ¼uksVjh ls izekf.kr ewy izfr½ izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA
4-7 fu/kkZfjr vekur jkf'k R.T.G.S. ds ek/;e ls vkWu ykbZu tek djkus ds izek.k ds :i esa bZ&fjflIV Ldsu dj viyksM djuk gksxkA
4-8 ifjf'k"V ukS ,oa nl esa rduhdh ,oa QkbZusaf'k;y chM laca/kh ?kks"k.kk i=A
4-9 fufonk nLrkost dh izfr ftlds leLr i`"Bksa ij fufonkdkj ds Lo&izekf.kr gLrk{kj ,oa lhy lfgrA fufonkdkj ds gLrk{kj o lhy ,y-vkj-Vh- ¼}kj iznk;½ o"kZ 2016&2017**
3. Clause 4 of the tender conditions, quoted above, clearly stipulates that in absence of any of the documents mentioned therein, the tender submitted by any tenderer shall be rejected.
4. A number of documents were required to be submitted, but, we are concerned with Clause 4.7 of the tender conditions, which provides that the requisite security amount shall be transferred by RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) online payment and in proof of the payment, the E-Receipt generated from the said payment shall have to be scanned and uploaded on the website. It is not disputed that the private Respondents to whom the contract has been awarded had not uploaded the scanned copy of E-Receipt. What they have uploaded was a photo copy of the receipt which shows that t
