Back
2007 Supreme(Guj) 507
2008 (1) GCD 644 (Guj) (DB)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Shah &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.A. Puj
Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Versus
Gujarat Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Special Civil Application No. 19988 of 20071—Decided on 24/08/2007
Appearance :
Mr. K. S. Nanavati, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ritesh K. Soni for petitioners 1-3
Mr. K. M. Patel, for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Varun K. Patel, for the Respondent No. 1.
Notice Served, by DS for the Respondent No. 2.
Decided in Favour of :
Respondent
Petition Dismissed
Headnote:Head Note :
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Respondent No. 1 excluded the petitioners from further tender process after opening of technical bids — Manufacturing facilities of petitioners located in State of Rajasthan and therefore tenders not considered on various grounds — Commercial bids of petitioner not opened — Shelf life of wheat-flour is only 45 days — Preparation of fortified wheat-flour requises inspection and monitoring of manufacturing facilities on regular basis which would not be practicable and effectively feasible in cases of petitioners — Respondents have their offices at-all district head quarters and Taluka headquarters and will be no practical difficulties for monitoring and inspection of flour mills — Bid of a local tenderer also rejected — Held, Corporation has rightly relied the Condition No. 5 of the tender conditions and has not committed any error.
Held :
[See Paras 6 & 19]
Preparation of fortified wheat flour requires inspection and monitoring of manufacturing facilities on regular basis. The Corporation has its offices at all District headquarters as well as Taluka (Tehsil) headquarters. Similarly, ICDS has its officers at all District levels and Taluka levels. The work of preparing fortified wheat flour requires monitoring on regular basis which would not be practicable and effectively feasible in cases, like the petitioners’, where the manufacturing facilities are located at far off places like Jaipur (578 kms. from the nearest District place Himmatnagar), Kota (458 kms.) and Udaipur (173 kms.). [Para 7]
In view of the above practical aspects, the Corporation is justified in relying upon condition No. 5 of the tender conditions which confers upon it a right to accept or reject any bid considering the practical situation. [Para 8]
The Corporation has not only rejected the technical bids of the petitioner, but also of a local tenderer called Gujarat Roller Flour Mills Association and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Corporation has excluded the petitioners’ tenders only on the ground that the petitioners are from outside the State of Gujarat. [Para 12]
M.S. Shah, J.—The petitioners, three in number, are engaged in the business of production and supply of supplementary nutrition food with manufacturing units in the State of Rajasthan at Kota, Jaipur and Udaipur. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners (two Private Limited Companies and one partnership firm) challenge the decision of the Respondent No. 1 - Gujarat Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) excluding the petitioners from further tender process after opening of technical bids.
2. The basic facts leading to filing of these petitions are not in dispute.
2.1 The Corporation issued tender notice dated 12.07.2007 inviting bids through e-tendering method from eligible flour millers for grinding of approx. 33,084 MT per annum quantity of wheat to get whole wheat flour and fortification of whole wheat flour with multiple micronutrients as per the requirement of Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) for distribution to Anganwadi centres in the State of Gujarat. Pursuant to that notice, Respondent No. 1 Corporation received 7 tenders, before the stipulated day and time, including 3 tenders of the petitioners in the present group. The technical bids of the 7 tenders received before stipulated time were opened on 27.07.2007.
2.2 The technical bids of 7 tenders were placed before the Tender & Purchase Committee (T&PC) of Respondent No. 1 Corporation in its meeting held on 30.07.2007 for scrutiny and for consideration as to whether their commercial bids should be opened or not. The said Committee consisted of :—
(i) Chairman, Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Gujarat.
(ii) Principal Secretary, Expenditure, Finance Department, Government of Gujarat.
(iii) Director, Civil Supplies, Food and Civil Suppliers and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Gujarat.
(iv) Managing Director, Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
At the meeting of the Committee held on 30.07.2007, 3 out of 4 members aforesaid were present viz. Chairman, Managing Director and Secretary (Expenditure), State of Gujarat. One Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Director, ICDS (Integrated Child Development Scheme) attended the meeting of the Committee as invitee.
2.3 After the technical bids were opened, it was noticed that the manufacturing facilities of the petitioners herein are located in the State of Rajasthan. Petitioner - Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. has its manufacturing facility at Udaipur, M/s. JVS Foods Pvt. Ltd. has its manufacturing facility at Jaipur and M/s. Kota Dall Mill has its manufacturing facility at Kota in the State of Rajasthan.
2.4 The Committee considered that on account of the petitioners’ manufacturing facilities being located at far off places like Jaipur (578 km.s from the nearest District place Himmatnagar), Kota (458 kms.) and Udaipur (173 kms.), the petitioners’ tenders were not required to be considered on various grounds such as impact on the quality of fortified wheat flour to be delivered, the practical difficulties in inspection and monitoring of manufacturing facilities on regular basis and also on the ground that in case of irregularities, the Consumer Affairs Departments of the State Government cannot take any effective action. The Tender and Purchase Committee also relied on condition Nos. 5 and 23 of the tender document. The Corporation accordingly did not open the commercial bids of the petitioners.
3. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid decision of the Corporation. After the parties were granted full opportunity to file their pleadings in the form of counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and sur-rejoinder also, the learned Counsel for the petitioners have been heard at length.
4. Mr. KS Nanavati, learned Counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions :—
(i) The petitioners satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed in the tend
