Back
2022 Supreme(HP) 588
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
Farm Technocrats - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 3704 of 2022
Decided on : 22-09-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR. JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:MR. K. D. SHREEDHAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. SNEH BHIMTA, ADVOCATE
Point of Law : In a sense ‘Wednesbury principle’ is imported to concept, i.e., decision is so arbitrary and irrational that it can never be that any responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law would have reached such a decision.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 226 – Himachal Pradesh Registration of Societies Act, 2006 – Equality before Law - Power of High Court to issue writs - Whether petitioner-society has an indefeasible right to extension and allocation of work in question on premise that its work and conduct has been satisfactory, though this contention has been specifically denied by respondents - If State acts within bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration State priorities. (Para 17)
Findings of the Court : Petitioner have been found to be exorbitantly high when compared to rates offered by the other bidders and once respondents seek to save the public revenue, Court are clearly of the view that petitioner-society cannot claim any preferential right of continuing with tender on the basis of clause 4 relating to duration of assignment and having been worked with respondent satisfactorily, as alleged by petitioner, which contention otherwise has been disputed by the respondents.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
“(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to extend the contract in favour of the petitioner forum till the completion of the project on year to year basis subject to satisfactory performance;
(ii) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash the evaluation criteria prescribed under Clause 8 and 8.1 of the pre- qualification evaluation to exclude the societies to participate in the e-tender process initiated by respondent No.2 in pursuance to annexure P-18 dated 23.05.2022 and also quash the e-tender process in view of the fact that the petitioner forum is entitled for extension of the contract till the completion of the project or in the alternative the petitioner forum may kindly be allowed to participate in the e-tendering process initiated vide Annexure P-18.”
2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Societies Act, 2006. The main object of the petitioner-society is to extend knowledge, skill and information to the farming community by enabling forward and backward linkages to strengthen the government programmes/execution by technical and professional support, to enhance the livelihood of providing opportunities good health, education, information sharing and social welfare, to create social awareness about environmental protection against hazardous with the industries, pesticides, obnoxious plants, un-degradable products etc., apart from many other objects. Majority of the members of the society are the alumni of the College of Agriculture, Palampur.
3. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) provided the official development assistance (ODA) loan to the Government of India (Japanices Yen 5.001 Billion) towards the implementation of “Himachal Pradesh Crop Diversification Promotion Projects (HPCDP) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is averred that the State of Himachal Pradesh through Agriculture Department got formed Himachal Pradesh Agriculture Development Society i.e. respondent No. 3 and authorized the society through its Project Director to execute the Project of the financial assistance provided by JICA.
4. Respondent No.1 has formed respondent No.3-society to execute the project of JICA in the State of Himachal Pradesh and the State Government has appointed its Officers to execute the project. The petitioner being eligible also applied for expression of interest to provide services of personnel of various categories to the respondents and on being found eligible and successful was issued the letter of acceptance for providing services of various categories on 25.08.2012 and thereafter the petitioner-society had accepted the said letter of acknowledgement and executed the contract agreement with the respondent No.2 on 28.08.2012. As per the Service Agreement, respondent No.2 was referred to as "the Client" and the petitioner was "the Agency'" and the petitioner had furnished the performance security with respondent No.2. The petitioner thereafter provided manpower to respondent No.2.
5. According to the petitioner, its performance was found to be satisfactory, therefore, the contract was extended on year to year basis vide separate agreements executed to this effect between respondent No.2 and the petitioner-society. Despite this, respondent No.2 invited fresh tender process in the year 2021 for execution of Phase-II project and the petitioner-Society being eligible also applied for providing services of the personnel of various categories to project management units of respondent No.2. Despite being the sole applicant having shown its expression of interest, respondent No.2 did not accept it’s tender. However, again a tender process was issued on 15.3.2021, wherein again the petitioner was the sole c
