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

2017 Supreme(P&H) 318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
S.J. VAZIFDAR and ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, JJ.
M/s Dharampal and Company - Petitioner
Versus
Food Corporation of India and others - Respondents
CWP-3661-2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-03-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.K. Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Chopra, and Mr. Anurag Chopra.

The EPF Act does not disqualify a bidder if not required by law to comply with its provisions, and a partnership firm is not liable for the individual partners' defaults unrelated to the firm's activities.

Headnote:

TENDER - ELIGIBILITY - EPF Act, 1952 - Sections 2(e), 2(f), 25, 26 - The court considered the eligibility of a partnership firm to bid for handling and transportation of food-grains based on the EPF Act, 1952. The court analyzed the clauses of the notice inviting tenders and the EPF Act to determine the firm's eligibility. The court held that the EPF Act does not disqualify a bidder if not required by law to comply with its provisions. The court also clarified that a partnership firm is not liable for the individual partners' defaults unrelated to the firm's activities. The judgment emphasized the distinction between eligibility and disqualification, and the need to test disqualification with respect to the bidder. The court quashed the decision holding the petitioner ineligible and directed the consideration of their tender.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought to quash the decision considering them ineligible to bid for handling and transportation of food-grains and challenged the award of work to another company. The Regional Bid Evaluation Committee opined that the petitioner's bid may be considered as technically disqualified for the handling and transport contract.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had the requisite experience in transport contracts and was not bound to submit documents in proof of EPF deposit for handling contracts. The court held that the EPF Act does not disqualify a bidder if not required by law to comply with its provisions. The court also clarified that a partnership firm is not liable for the individual partners' defaults unrelated to the firm's activities.

Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioner to bid for handling and transportation of food-grains based on the EPF Act and the clauses of the notice inviting tenders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the EPF Act does not disqualify a bidder if not required by law to comply with its provisions. The court also clarified that a partnership firm is not liable for the individual partners' defaults unrelated to the firm's activities. The judgment highlighted the need to test disqualification with respect to the bidder.

Final Decision: The court quashed the decision holding the petitioner ineligible and directed the consideration of their tender.

JUDGMENT :

S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

The petitioner- a partnership firm has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the 1st respondent’s decision considering the petitioner to be ineligible to bid in respect of the tenders issued by it for the work of handling and transportation of food-grain. The petitioner has also challenged the award of work by the 1st respondent in favour of respondent No. 3 – M/s Mandeep Transport Company.

2. The 1st respondent issued an e-tender notice inviting online tenders under the two bid system for the appointment of contractors for loading/unloading/handling and transport of food-grains and allied material for a period of two years. One submitted a bid. The estimated contract value was Rs. 6,03,06,000/-.

(A) The notice inviting tenders contains the following clauses:-

“Terms & Conditions:-

3. In case of Handling & Transport Contract:- (i) Experienced contractors of FCI participating in the new tenders as a bidder having insufficient experience by giving undertaking that 10% of additional B.G. would be submitted for relaxation of experience.

AND

(ii) The contractors submitting tenders having experience in handling contract has to deposit the following documents in proof of deposit of EPF timely and correctly:-

(a) No Dues Certificate from the concerned RPFC to the effect that the contractor has deposited the PF dues in respect of number of workers engaged by him for the experience period/contract period correctly and timely.

(b) The copies of monthly challan for the experience period.

6. All HTC have to ensure that all statutory provisions such as EPF/ESI/Contract Labour Act etc. are strictly complied with.”

(B) As we mentioned earlier, bids were invited under the two envelope system. Part-A pertains to the “Technical Bid”. The technical bid, inter alia, contains ‘General Information to Tenderers’. The respondents relied upon the following provisions in the ‘General Information to Tenderers’:-

“3. Qualification Conditions for Tender:

(I) Tenderer should have experience of Rake Handling and/or Transportation duly obtained from Manufacturer/PSU/Govt. Dept./Public Ltd. Company/Private Limited Company dealing in the field of fertilizer, food grains, cement, sugar, coarse grains or any other commodity. Tenderer should have executed in any of the immediate preceding five years the work of value:

(a) At least 25% of the estimated value of the contract to be awarded, in one single contract:

OR

(b) 50% of the estimated value of the contract to be awarded, in different contracts.

In case of partnership, only the experience of the firm will be reckoned and for the purpose the experience of the individual partners will not be counted.

4. Disqualification Conditions:

(I) Tenderers who have been blacklisted or otherwise debarred by FCI or any department of Central or State Government or any other Public Sector Undertaking will be ineligible during the period of such blacklisting or for a period of 5 years from the date of blacklisting/debarment, whichever is earlier.

(II) Any Tenderer whose contract with the Food Corporation of India, or any department of Central or State Government or any other Public Sector Undertaking has been terminated before the expiry of the contract period at any point of time during last five years, will be ineligible.

(III) Tenderer whose Earnest Money Deposit and/or Security Deposit has been forfeited by Food Corporation of India or any department of Central or State Government or any other Public Sector Undertaking, during the last five years, will be ineligible.

(IV) If the proprietor/any of the partners of the Tenderer firm/any of the Director of the Tenderer company have been, at any time, convicted by a Court of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years or more, such Tenderer will be ineligible.

(V) While considering ineligibility arising out of any of the above clauses incurring























































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 Back to top