M/s. Indian Agro Marketing Co-operative Limited vs State of Punjab and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—A tender was floated by respondent No. 2 on 06.08.2013 for purchase of 3600 metric tonnes of Kala Chana and 2400 metric tonnes of Dal Chana. The petitioner also participated in the tender, which was opened on 14.08.2013. The tender submitted by the petitioner was found to be not technically qualified. It is the say of the petitioner that the tender has been rejected on account of alleged non-fulfillment of two conditions of the tender though as per the petitioner it has fulfilled the terms and conditions. Firstly, the petitioner is not having its own manufacturing unit of pulses and secondly, the tenderer should have at least two years'' experience of processing of pulses and related products. The petitioner states that it has been dealing with the processing of pulses since 1997 and has experience of 16 years being a cooperative society and dealing with Government agency alone including army authorities/organizations.

The relevant terms and conditions of the tender, which the petitioner is alleged not to be fulfilled, are being reproduced hereunder:-

8) The tenderer must attach self attested copies of the PAN Card, VAT Number, CST Number allotted to him/them. The tenderers must also submit copies of Audited Balance-Sheets for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 with minimum annual turnover of Rs. 30 Crore for at least two years in these three years in processing of Pules and related products. Copies of Income Tax Returns & Food Grain License, if applicable, shall also be enclosed.

14) The tenderer(s) will also indicate the source of his/their supplies i.e. location of manufacturing unit or the points from where the stocks are to be supplied depending upon that he/they submit food grain license of the area, if applicable, where he/they have manufacturing unit or business premises or both.

The stand of the respondents is quite clear from the minutes of the proceedings of the Tender Opening Committee annexed as Annexure R-2/7. It would be appropriate to reproduce the same.

The aforesaid shows that a detailed examination had been made by the Committee consisting of six representatives of different departments and it is not a coup decision. We are saying so because it is not the function of this Court to sit as a Court of Appeal. The terms and conditions of the tender are not challenged before us. If the aforesaid material is perused, it is found that there are relevant and cogent reasons given for the petitioner to be found not complying with Clauses 8 and 14. Thus, Clause 8 is not satisfied because the turnover issued by the Chartered Accountant in its certificate is regarding total sales and not on account of processing of pulses and related products. Similarly with Clause 14, the principle contention before us is that the petitioner had entered into a Rent Agreement on 26.07.2013 and for lease of land and machinery. This is on the anvil of the bid. There is no material to establish that the petitioner has been carrying on the manufacturing activity. By merely alleging to have taken a premises on rent on the anvil of the agreement, the petitioner cannot be said to have become a manufacturer. The detailed reasons have been set out and we find the rationale set out aforesaid as unexceptional. We, thus, do not inclined to interfere with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismiss the same.