SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(HP) 738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh, JJ.
Billu – Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 7458 of 2022
Decided On : 30-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Sr. Addl. A.G., Mr. J. S. Guleria, Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Dy. A.Gs. And Mr. Rajat, Chauhan, Law Officer, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate, Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate

Point of Law: A tender is essentially a contract between two parties and merely because one party to contract is State, basic character of transaction does not change.

Headnote:

Contractor Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 12 (1) - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Constitution of India, 190 - Articles 14 and 19 - Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971 - Rules 102 and 115 - Tender Process - Quashed Tender - Tender work in question allotted to respondent No. 4 may kindly be quashed and respondents may kindly be directed to re-publish same in accordance with law - It cannot, in any manner be concluded that respondent No. 3 did not make an endeavour to comply with provisions. [Para 19]

Finding of the Court: Petitioner could have very well participated in tender process and come to this Court by way of writ petition but petitioner has deliberately chosen not to participate in tender process nor approached Court till tender had been finalised - If petitioner really feels that tender had been invited without following due process, then he should have come to Court at threshold and, as observed above, not waited for tender process has been finalised – Court not only do not find any merit in this petition but find same to be a gross abuse of process of Court - Petitioner without spending a single paisa and without participating in tender process has unnecessarily dragged respondent No. 4 into avoidable litigation.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

As per the pleaded case, the petitioner is a registered government contractor and licence holder under Section 12 (1) of the Contractor Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and a licence has been granted by respondent No. 3 i.e. Municipal Council, Manali, for collection and segregation of garbage. The petitioner was also a GST certificate holder. Respondent No. 3 invited online bids items in electronic tendering system in two (2) covers system for door to door collection of solid waste alongwith transportation to the Solid Waste Management (for short 'SWM') site Rangari from Wards No. 1 to 7, for which vehicles were required to be provided by the contractor. These vehicles were further required to contain different containers containing wet (bio-degradable) and dry (non-biodegradable) separately including transportation of garbage collected from street sweeping for a total costs of Rs. 8,68,000/- vide tender notice dated 20.09.2022.

2. In terms of the tender, the last date for applying was fixed as 28.09.2022 and the date for opening the tender was fixed as 29.09.2022. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 while inviting tender did not follow the provisions of the H.P. Financial Rules and also the Manual for Procurement of Works, 2019 and despite this awarded the work in favour of respondent No. 4.

3. Hence, the present petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

    i) That the impugned tender work in question allotted to respondent No. 4 (Annexure P-9) for respondent No. 3 Council invited online bids item rates in electronic tendering system in 2 covers system for door to door collection of solid waste alongwith transportation tot he SWM site Rangari from Ward No. 1 to 7 (vehicle to be provided by the contractor allottee and transported in different containers containing wet (bio-degradable) and dry (non biodegradable) separately including transportation of garbage, may kindly be quashed and the respondents may kindly be directed to re-publish the same in accordance with law, in the interest of justice and fair play.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to republish the above mentioned tender with wide publication as per law.

4. Only respondents No. 3 and 4 i.e. Municipal Council, Manali and Triotap Technologies in whose favour the tender has been allotted, have contested the instant petition.

5. In the reply filed by respondent No. 3, various preliminary objections have been raised, questioning the locus standi and the right of the petitioner to file and maintain the instant petition and the petitioner having not approached the court with clean hands and the petition being based on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations.

6. On merits, it has been contended, that in addition to the online tender invited on the e-Procurement System of H.P. Government, the same was also sent for publication in two newspapers, Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran, but the same was not published in the Dainik Jagran for the reasons best known to the Dainik Jagran, however, it is published in the Amar Ujala. It has been further averred that the entire tender process and thereafter the allotment of work has been conducted in a fair and transparent manner, that too, after completing all codal formalities and, therefore, requires no interference.

7. As regards the Contractor i.e. respondent No. 4, it too, in its reply raised various preliminary objections questioning the locus standi of the petitioner to file and maintain the present petition, he neither has the licence nor he participated in the tender process. It has further been averred that in absence of any prejudice being caused to the petitioner, he has no locus standi to file and maintain the present petition.

8. Lastly, it has been averred that the licence issued in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 was valid till 10.07.2021, whereas the present tender

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top