Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ.
M/s Jagtar Singh Sadhu Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
Food Corporation of India and another - Respondents
CWP No.12513 of 2016(O&M)
Decided On : 06-09-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. J.S. Puri, Advocate Food Corporation of India, Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sehajbir Singh, Advocate.
The application of legal principles depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and the power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes.
Headnote:
Tender - Acceptance of Bid - 16, 2(5), 8(d), 8(g), 11, 12, 21 - The court discussed the acceptance of the bid of respondent No.2 in pursuance of the tender notice and examined the relevant clauses of the tender notice. The petitioner's objections against the technical bid of respondent No.2 were found to be invalid, and the bid of respondent No.2 was accepted by the respondent Corporation after examining his overall position and in the best interest of the Corporation. The court referred to various judgments to establish that each case has to be decided on its own facts and that the application of legal principles would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also emphasized that the power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order rejecting its legal notice and restraining respondent No.1 from allotting the tender to respondent No.2. The petitioner objected to the acceptance of the bid of respondent No.2, claiming it was non-responsive due to various discrepancies. The petitioner approached the court challenging the action of respondent No.1, and the matter was adjourned multiple times.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bid of respondent No.2 was accepted by the respondent Corporation after examining his overall position and in the best interest of the Corporation. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to show that the action taken by the respondent Corporation was illegal or arbitrary warranting interference by the Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the action of the respondent Corporation in accepting the technical bid of respondent No.2 in pursuance of the tender notice was legal and valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that each case has to be decided on its own facts and that the application of legal principles would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also highlighted that the power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and concluded that the action taken by the respondent Corporation was not illegal or arbitrary warranting interference by the Court.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.
1. The petitioner through the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing the impugned order dated 9.6.2016, Annexure P.12 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the legal notice dated 11.5.2016, Annexure P.5 sent by it has been rejected contrary to the terms of Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT), Annexure P.5 in purported compliance of the order dated 1.6.2016 passed by this Court in CWP No.11535 of 2016 (M/s Jagtar Singh Sandhu Vs. FCI), which is stated to be pending. Further prayer has been made for restraining respondent No.1 from allotting the tender to respondent No.2 and declaring the tender of respondent No.2 as non responsive being in contravention to the terms of NIT and the law laid down by this Court in CWP No.23472 of 2015 (Khem Singh Vs. FCI) holding that incomplete tenders are liable to be rejected. Direction has also been sought to respondent No.1 to allot the tender to the petitioner being eligible.
2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. In the month of April 2016, respondent No.1 invited applications from eligible transport contractors for submitting their bids for awarding the tender of transport contractor for a period of two years for transportation of food grains from various points of food storage at Baghapurana station to Rail heads, Moga/Kotkapura/ Ajitwal. The petitioner was interested for receiving of contract for the aforesaid assignment. The previous tender was allotted to the petitioner for the same work. The petitioner wanted it for fresh season for a period of two years. The petitioner downloaded the tender notice for Etender for appointment of Transport Contractor at Baghapurana. The estimated contract value was Rs.25,39,95,000/-. The manner of submission of tender was online and the requisite documents were required to be uploaded. One of the mandatory terms of the tender was that the tender document was to be submitted online in two parts i.e. technical bid and price bid. Further, all supporting documents were required to be uploaded after properly scanned and encrypted. As per clause 8(d) of the instructions, the tender document which did not comply with these instructions was to be summarily rejected. Clause 8(g) thereof further described that tenders which were incomplete were to be ignored. As per clause 13, it was clearly mentioned that in case the information given by the tenderer was found to be false at any stage, respondent No.1 had the right to disqualify/summarily terminate the contract. The petitioner submitted its tender and quoted the rate of 171% above the scheduled rates and submitted its technical and financial bid by uploading the same complete in all respects well before the cut off date i.e. 4.5.2016. Only two tenders were submitted in pursuance to the NIT, Annexure P.1. One was of the petitioner and the other was of respondent No.2. On 5.5.2016, technical bids were opened and process of evaluation started. The petitioner immediately downloaded the technical documents/bid of respondent No.2. When the petitioner examined the technical documents of respondent No.2, he found that even his technical bid was liable to be rejected in view of clause 8(c) (ii), (g) and clause 13 of the NIT. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 did not fill up Annexure X attached with the tender document with regard to the UTR No; transaction reference number pertaining to earnest money deposit. Even date of transaction at Sr.No.12 was also required to be filled in Annexure X separately by giving the details of the Bank transactions through which EMD had been deposited in the account of respondent No.1. As per clause 6(i) of the NIT, the earnest money at the rate of 2% of the contract value was required to be deposited electronically. Annexure X in t
