Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
S. Muralidhar, Avneesh Jhingan, JJ.
Kulbir Singh And Company - Appellant
Versus
Food Corporation Of India And Others - Respondent
CWP No. 14019 of 2020, CWP No. 14021 of 2020, CWP No. 14022 of 2020, CWP No. 14023 of 2020, CWP No. 14024 of 2020, CWP No. 14025 of 2020, CWP No. 14026 of 2020, CWP No. 14044 of 2020, CWP No. 14047 of 2020, CWP No. 17123 of 2020, CWP No. 17124 of 2020 and CWP No. 17125 of 2020
Decided On : 17-11-2020
Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, Mr. Udit Raj, Advocate, Mr. Anurag Chopra, and Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocates in CWP Nos. 14019, 14021 to 14026, 14044, 14047 and 17123 of 2020. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent in CWP No. 17124 and 17125 of 2020. Mr. Bhupender Ghai, Advocate for the Respondent
The court upheld the reservation of the right to reject tenders without assigning any reason under Clause 11 of the Model Tender Form (MTF) and found the rejection of the technical bids by the FCI to be neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.
Headnote:
EPF Act - Rejection of Technical Bids - Clause 5, Clause 25 - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the rejection of technical bids by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) due to non-compliance with EPF Act and other statutory provisions. The FCI reserved the right to reject any or all tenders without assigning any reason under Clause 11 of the Model Tender Form (MTF). The rejection of the technical bids was found to be neither unreasonable nor arbitrary, and the court saw no reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the FCI.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, M/s. Kulbir Singh and Co. and Lovepreet Singh, filed writ petitions challenging the rejection of their technical bids by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) for appointment as Handling and Transport Contractor (HTC) in various FCI centres in Haryana. The FCI rejected the technical bids due to non-compliance with EPF Act and other statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the technical bids by the FCI was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the rejection of technical bids.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of technical bids by the FCI, compliance with EPF Act and other statutory provisions, and the reservation of the right to reject tenders without assigning any reason under Clause 11 of the Model Tender Form (MTF).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the technical bids by the FCI was not unreasonable or arbitrary, and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The FCI reserved the right to reject tenders without assigning any reason under Clause 11 of the MTF.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the rejection of technical bids by the FCI, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
S. Muralidhar, J. - This is a batch of 12 writ petitions by two Petitioners viz., M/s. Kulbir Singh and Co. and Lovepreet Singh. While CWP Nos. 14021, 14022, 14023, 14024, 14044, 14047, 17123, 17124 and 17125 of 2020 have been filed by M/s. Kulbir Singh and Co., CWP Nos. 14025 and 14026 of 2020 have been filed by Lovepreet Singh.
2. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the decision of the Respondent No. I/Food Corporation of India (TCP), rejecting the technical bids submitted by the Petitioners, pursuant to a notice inviting tenders for being appointed as Handling and Transport Contractor ('HTC') in the various FCI centres in Haryana.
Background Facts
3. By an e-tender notice dated 23 rd April, 2020 FCI invited tenders for appointment of HTCs in 7 centres in District Kurukshetra and 11 centres in District Karnal. By another e-tender notice dated 1 st July, 2020 FCI invited tenders for appointment of HTCs in 6 centres in District Hisar, 8 centres in District Karnal, 3 centres in District Kurukshetra and 1 centre in District Faridabad.
4. The terms and conditions attached to the tender were specified in the e-tender notices itself. Relevant to the present petitions is Clause 5, which stipulated that "all HTCs have to ensure that all statutory provisions such as EPF/ESI/Contract Labour Act etc. are strictly complied with." Also relevant is clause 25, which reads as under:
"25. The tenderer should be registered with EPFO as an independent employer, having separate code number as required for an employer under the provision of EPF and MP Act, 1952 and the EPF scheme framed there under and upload scanned copy of EPF Code falling which tender will be summarily rejected."
5. On 10 th May, 2020, pursuant to the e-tender notice dated 23 rd April, 2020, M/s. Kulbir Singh and Co., a proprietorship, through its sole proprietor Kulbir Singh, submitted technical bids for 7 different centres in District Karnal viz., Jagadhari, Ambala Cantt., Khizrabad, Mustafabad, Mulana, Bilaspur and Chhichhrauli. It must be mentioned here that, pursuant to the aforesaid e-tender notice, Lovepreet Singh, son of Kulbir Singh, the Petitioner in CWP Nos. 14025 and 14026 of 2020, submitted technical bids on 11 th May, 2020 for two of the very same centres in District Karnal that M/s. Kulbir Singh and Co. had submitted technical bids for i.e. the centres at Jagadhri and Mullana. On 18 th July, 2020, pursuant to the e-tender notice dated 1 st July, 2020, M/s. Kulbir Singh and Co. submitted technical bids for 3 centres in District Karnal viz., Radaur, Karnal and Jundla.
6. On 20 th July, 2020, a letter was sent by the Assistant General Manager on behalf of the Regional General Manager, FCI at its regional office in Panchkula, to both Petitioners drawing their attention to a complaint made by M/s. Jagjiwanpal Singh and Company. The said complaint had pointed out that Kulbir Singh and Co. had claimed experience for the HTC Karnal contract for the period from 12 th September, 2016 to 11 th September, 2018. A perusal of the EPFO Website had revealed that Kulbir Singh and Co. was paying Employee Provident Fund ('EPF') for the family members and sons of Kulbir Singh viz., Lovepreet Singh and Atinder Singh. It was found that Lovepreet Singh was, in his personal capacity, a participant in all tenders along with M/s. Kulbir Singh and Company and was running contracts in his name for the FCI. It was further pointed out as under:
"the profit and loss account ('P&L account') and the income tax return ('ITR') uploaded with the technical bid of M/s. Kulbir Singh and Co. Kurukshetra and Sh. Lovepreet Singh, the income has been shown as business income on the one hand and on the other hand M/s. Kulbir Singh and Co. has shown Sh. Lovepreet Singh and Sh. Atinder Singh as labourers as per monthly wage register and remitting EPF for them."
7. The letter further pointed out that aforementioned complaint had been investigated by a committee of three Managers. The findings
