IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL and RAMENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Manufacturers of Petroleum Specialties Association and others - Petitioners
Vs.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another - Respondents
CWP No. 21994 of 2016
Decided On : 20-12-2016
Companies Act - Procurement of material directly from PSUs - Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 - [Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013] - The court considered the impugned notice and tender documents which excluded private sector companies from participating in the tender process. The court analyzed the legality of the condition and its impact on competition and public interest. The court referred to various judgments and legal principles related to tender processes, judicial review, and public interest. The court concluded that the decision to restrict the tender to public sector undertakings was not arbitrary, malafide, or irrational, and therefore, no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, private sector companies, challenged the impugned notice and tender documents which excluded them from participating in the tender process for procurement of transformer oil. They argued that the condition was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision to restrict the tender to public sector undertakings was not arbitrary, malafide, or irrational. It held that interference in tender matters is limited and should only occur if the decision is mala fide, arbitrary, or affects public interest.
Issues: The main issue was whether the condition in the impugned notice and tender documents, which excluded private sector companies from participating in the tender process, was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of limited judicial review in tender matters, the commercial nature of contract evaluation, and the need to protect public interest. It emphasized that interference in tender matters should only occur if the decision is mala fide, arbitrary, or affects public interest.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the impugned notice and tender documents.
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The petitioners through the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India pray for quashing the impugned notice and the tender documents dated 5.10.2015, Annexures P.1 and P.2 respectively.
2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Petitioner No.1 is a company licenced and registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short, “the Act”) on June 13, 2014. Thereafter, it was incorporated under the provisions of the Act as a company limited by guarantee on July 24, 2014. Its main object is to promote and protect trade, commerce and industries in India and in particular trade, commerce and industries connected with petroleum specialty and lubricant products and/or specialty oils. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are pioneers in the manufacture of petroleum specialty products, lubricant products and specialty oils including insulating oil in drums for transformers and switchgears. They have been supplying Transformer oil (TO)/Insulating oil to customers in more than 75 countries including customers in the domestic Indian market such as various electricity boards, PGCIL, BHEL, ABB, Alstom, Siemens, Transformer Rectifiers etc. They have also been supplying the TO/insulating oil to several government undertakings all over India. Respondent No.1 is a government of Haryana undertaking which undertakes the power distribution and retail supply business in the northern parts of Haryana. It is registered under the Act and commenced its operations in July 1999 on inheriting the distribution business of the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board. It has issued 27,59,193 connections in various categories in the area under its jurisdiction. The petitioners are aggrieved by the condition in the notice inviting tender dated 5.10.2016, Annexure P.1 and the tender documents, Annexure P.2 which excludes all private sector companies from participating in the tender process. The said notice and the tender documents contain an oppressive clause “procurement of following material directly from PSUs only”. According to the petitioners, respondent No.1 and the erstwhile HSEB used to buy TO/Insulating oil from the private players including the members of petitioner No.1 but for the past few years, orders were being directly placed on public sector undertakings without advertising the procurement openly. Previously, the private sector companies did participate in the tender process and were also successful suppliers to respondent No.1/HSEB. Infact, in 2012, respondent No.1 had floated a tender for supply of TO/Insulating oil when there was no restriction on participation by private players. In the said tender, petitioner No.2 quoted the lowest rates and was awarded the tender. Petitioner No.2 fulfilled the supply to respondent No.1 without any complaint whatsoever about quality. The petitioners assert that insertion of the impugned condition in the notice inviting tender and the tender documents is contrary to the mandate of the guidelines for determination of tariff by bidding process for procurement of power by distribution licenses issued by the Ministry of Power on 19.1.2005 and published in the Gazette of India. The underlying objectives and the principle of the competitive bidding guidelines is essentially promotion of competitive bidding, reduction of cost of procurement, price of electricity and benefit for consumers. Aggrieved by the impugned condition in the impugned notice and the tender documents, the petitioners are before this Court through the instant writ petition.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been inter alia stated that on the basis of the executive policy decision of the government with the purpose to cut short the procurement of time and to meet the regular requirement of transformer oil directly from the PSUs, the respondents floated the present tend
BSN Joshi v. Nair Coal Services Ltd.
Caterpillar India Pvt. Limited vs. Western Coal Fields Limited and others
Jagdish M andal v. State of Orissa and Ors.
Mahabir Auto Stores vs. Indian Oil Corporation
Maa Binda Express Carrier and another v. North East Frontier Railway and others
Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.