The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of public interest, reasonableness, and non-interference in contractual matters. The court emphasized the burden of proving malafides and the need for credible evidence in such cases.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of communication dated 21.3.2017 (Annexure P-4), whereby work for transportation of food grains i.e. specified articles from Principal Distribution Centres (Pramkush Vitaran Kendra) of Food Corporation of India to HP State Civil Supplies Corporation whole godowns in District Solan, came to be allotted to respondent No.5 i.e. M/s Kalka Shimla Goods Transport Union, Solan, for the years 2017-2018, preferred instant petition, seeking therein following main reliefs:

“(i) That Annexure: P-4, dated 21.3.2017 , by virtue of which tender 2017 has been allotted to the respondent no 5 without completion of the tender process may kindly be quashed and set-aside, and be declared as an act without jurisdiction, illegal, unconstitutional and void-ab-initio.

(ii) That the respondent no 5 may be restrained from performing the transportation work and to further restrain from participating in the tender process.

(iii) That appropriate order, writ or directions be issued to respondent to complete the tender process in pursuant to the notice dated 8.3.2017 (P-14) within time bound period.”

2. Facts as emerge from the record are that respondents No. 1 to 3, with a view to ensure smooth supply of specified articles under targeted public distribution system, available with the whole sale godowns of the HP State Civil Supplies Corporation, located in Solan District, invited tenders for transportation of food grains i.e. specified articles from Principal Distribution Centre of Food Corporation of India to HP State Civil Supplies Corporation whole sale godowns located in different locations of the District, with the prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner, Solan. It also emerges from the record that there are two Principal Distribution Centre of Food Corporation of India in Solan District, namely at Solan and Parwanoo. HP State Civil Supplies Corporation, Solan, Dharampur, Kandaghat and Arki are fed from Solan Principal Distribution Centres and Nalagarh and Ramshahar godowns are fed from Principal Distribution Centre, Parwanoo. For the financial years 2017-18, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department invited tender vide Notice Inviting Tender dated 8.3.207 (Annexure P-3) from the interested parties, to participate and submit their quotations, in a sealed cover, on or before 28.3.2017, in the office of District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Solan, for Principal Distribution Centres, Solan and Parwanoo. Petitioner had submitted its application on 24.1.2017. Respondents, vide annexure P-3, intimated/circulated that tenders/applications submitted by interested parties would be opened on 28.3.2017, in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, however, the fact remains that, on 21.3.2017, a communication came to be issued by District Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, disclosing therein that work stands allotted to respondent No.5, who, vide its communication dated 2.3.2017, had agreed to work at a rate 5% less than those of the previous years. Perusal of aforesaid communication (Annexure P-4), further suggests that work pertaining to Solan and Parwanoo was awarded to respondent No.5, whereas, tenders with regard to transportation from Principal Distribution Centres, Parwanoo to Nalagarh and Ramshahar was to be opened on 28.3.2017. Vide Annexure P-5, i.e. communication addressed to respondents No.3 and 4, petitioner, while making protest against decision of the respondents, in awarding work to respondent No.5 also submitted that it is also ready and willing to work at rate 10% less. However, the fact remains that aforesaid offer made by the petitioner was not accepted by the authorities concerned. In the aforesaid background, petitioner, terming action of the respondents, in awarding work to respondent No. 5 to be illegal, unjust and colourable exercise of power, approached this Court, seeking reliefs as have