The duty of the court to safeguard the interest of the trust and the principles of natural justice were central to the judgment.

JAGDISH BHALLA, J.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners has prayed for a writ, order or direction to command the respondents to communicate to the petitioner the acceptance letter of his bid relating to negotiations which took place on 8th December, 2000 to purchase the wheat within the stipulated period. He has further prayed to quash the negotiation proceedings dated 24th january, 2001.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief. are that the U. P. Cooperative Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as P. C. F.) invited tenders for sale of wheat lying in the godowns of the P. C. F. including its godowns at Sahajahanpur wherefrom 6958 metric tonnes of wheat was to be sold by the P. C. F. Besides other firms, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 also submitted their tenders. On 8th December, 2000 tenders were opened. The petitioner-firm had quoted Rs. 500 per quintal for purchase of 2,880 quintals of wheat while the respondent No. 3 offered Rs. 565. 52 paisa per quintal for purchase of 4. 000 quintals of wheat. Since none of the tenderers had offered to purchase the entire stock of 6,958 metric tonnes of wheat, it was decided to negotiate with the tenderers. During negotiations, the petitioner-firm which had tendered to purchase only 2,880 metric tonnes of wheat offered to take the entire stock of 6,958 metric tonnes of wheat at the rate of Rs. 565. 61 paisa per quintal while the respondent No. 3 maintained its earlier offer, i. e. , Rs. 565. 52 paisa per quintal but agreed to purchase the entire stock of 6958 metric tonnes of wheat. Thus, the offer of the petitioner was higher than that of respondent No. 3 by 9 paisa per quintal. The Committee of the officers constituted for the purpose forwarded the tenders to the Head quarter with its recommendation that tenders of either of the two, i. e. , either the petitioner or respondent No. 3 be considered. The Committee constituted at the Head Quarter for finalisation of the tenders in its meeting held on 14th December, 2000 accepted the offer of the petitioner and directed it to furnish a Bank Draft of Rs. 12,50,000 (rupees twelve lacs fifty thousands ).

( 3 ) IN the meantime, the respondent No. 3 moved some applications complaining that it was not associated with the negotiations allegedly held on 8th December. 2000 and it was not given opportunity to raise its tender. On receiving the complaints, the Agricultural Production commissioner, U. P. , called for a report from the P. C. F. Thereafter the matter was placed before the State Government and the Principal Secretary, Cooperative suggested that the parties concerned be again negotiated. Accordingly, negotiations again took place wherein the offer of respondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 566. 10 paisa per quintal was found highest. Ultimately, the offer of respondent No. 3 was accepted and the respondent No. 3 was given the contract to purchase the entire stock of 6. 958 metric tonnes of wheat at Shhajahanpur at the rate of Rs. 566. 10 paisa per quintal. Aggrieved against the said acceptance of the offer of respondent No. 3, the petitioners have come up before this Court by filing the present writ petition.

( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. K. Khare, learned counsel for the P. C. F. Dr. R. K. Srivastava and learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Sri D. C. Mukherjee. We also perused the original record produced by Dr. R. K. Srivastava.

( 5 ) SRI P. K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the process adopted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without any authority of law. According to him, for accepting the offer of respondent No. 3 a bad practice has been adopted and the practice was abused at the pleasure of the authorities in order to give contract to respondent No. 3. He has further submitted that once the tenders were finalised after negotiations and the petitioners tender/offer as well as the security deposited by the petitioner were accep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document