Chandra Mohan Phutela vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

Petitioner is a Transporter, who is engaged in the business of transportation of food-grains and for this purpose he is registered with Regional Food

Controller, Kumaon Region, Haldwani (respondent no. 3). He was awarded contract for transporting food-grains during financial year 2019-20 and in

view of extension granted to him due to pandemic caused by Covid-19, he is still continuing the work of transportation of food-grains.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned tender notice dated 29.05.2020 as well as the corrigendum

dated 02.06.2020 issued by the respondent no. 3(contained as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this writ petition).

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 fix the Schedule-Rates for Handling and Transportation of

Goods as requested by the Regional Food Controller by letter dated 29.04.2020 in the respondent department also and only then initiate the fresh

tender process by disclosing the Schedule Rate in the tender document.â€​

The tender notice as well as the corrigendum issued by respondent no. 3 has been challenged by petitioner on the sole ground that no schedule rate

has been fixed for the work of handling and transportation of food-grains. Petitioner has relied upon the letter dated 29.04.2020 issued by respondent

no. 3 to the Commissioner Food and Civil Supplies, Uttarakhand.

Based on the said letter, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that fixation of rate schedule is mandatory and since no rate

schedule was fixed before issuing the tender notice, therefore, the entire tender process is vitiated on this ground alone.

I have gone through the said letter issued by respondent no. 3. The said letter was issued for a different purpose altogether, namely, to consider the

request of existing transporters for extension of contract for the current financial year at 2% lesser rates than the rates for the previous year (2019-

20). Although, in the opening sentence of the said letter it is mentioned that due to non-fixation of schedule rates for the work of transportation and

handling of food-grains, some problems are being faced, however, this statement alone is not sufficient to set-aside the tender notice and the

corrigendum issued by respondent no. 3.

The Court posed a question to learned counsel for the parties regarding rationale for fixation of standard rate, however, none of the learned

counsels could give any satisfactory reply.

Every prudent person in a free market economy would like to procure services at the lowest price. The State Government is also entitled to procure

services at competitive price to secure best value for money. Therefore, fixation of schedule of rate for procuring services, including handling and

transport services in respect of food-grains, would be counter-productive, as State Government would lose out the benefit arising out of competition

between various transporters/contractors. If schedule rate is disclosed to the prospective bidders for transport services, then they will make a cartel to

ensure that the rates quoted by them do not go down beyond certain point, as a result the public exchequer would be sufferer, as the State

Government would be required to pay more amount as transport charges.

Paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 contains a statement that Ministry of Food and Public Distribution, Government of

India had directed the State Government to fix the schedule of rates for the transportation and handling of food-grains.

From perusal of the various documents enclosed with the writ petition, this Court could infer that it is the Central Government, which pays the

handling and transportation charges in respect of food-grains distributed through Public Distribution System, therefore, the Central Government had

directed the State Government to fix the schedule of rates for guidance of the concerned authorities responsible for handling and transportation of the

food-grains within the State. However, the direction issued by Central Government is not law, therefore, violation, if any, of such direction will not

render the tender process initiated pursuant to tender notice dated 29.05.2020 invalid, as contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The

relevant provisions of Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2017 dealing with procurement of services by the Government/Government Agencies are also

absolutely silent on this point and they do not provide that, fixation of schedule of rate would be necessary condition in every notice inviting tender.

Even otherwise also, petitioner has been participating in the tender process initiated by respondent no. 3 for the last one decade and during the

year 2019-20 he was awarded the contract.

The letter enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition was issued on 18.06.2005; while, documents enclosed as Annexure Nos. 6 & 7 to the writ

petition were issued in the year 2008-09. Based on these documents, petitioner submits that fixation of rate schedule is a mandatory condition, violation

whereof will vitiate the entire tender process. There is no explanation given in the writ petition as to why petitioner did not raise this issue earlier.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any valid reason for interfering with the tender notice and the corrigendum issued by respondent

no. 3. Similarly, no direction can be issued to respondent no. 1 to fix the schedule rate for handling and transportation of the goods, as prayed in prayer

no. 2 of the writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued within twenty four hours.