Ramesh Surana vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner seeks a suitable writ to declare the letters dated 20-7-2011 (Annexure - P/4), 22-7-2011 (Annexure - P/5) and the agreement (Annexure - P/6) as illegal, arbitrary and against the law. Further, the petitioner be declared as only eligible candidate for Notice Inviting Tender (for short "NIT") dated 16-5-2011 (sic 10-5- 2011) in place of the respondent No. 5. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent No.2 invited tenders for transportation of food grains e.g. sugar, salt, edible oil, etc. under the scheme of DPT (Dwar Praday Parivahan) for the year 2011-12. The tenders were to be submitted by 1''O clock afternoon of 10-5-2011 and thereafter, it was to be opened on the same day at 2''O clock afternoon. The period of work was for the financial year 2011-12.

Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that only two tenders, one of the petitioner and second of the respondent No. 4, were presented. The respondent No. 4 was disqualified due to non-submission of papers regarding Heavy Goods Vehicle. Thereafter, the negotiation between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 failed. Shri Agrawal would further submit that the respondent No.5 made an offer vide letter Annexure - P/3 stating that the respondent No. 5 was ready and willing to transport the aforesaid goods at the rate of Rs.234/- per MT. The petitioner offered the rate of Rs. 390/- per MT for which according to the petitioner negotiation took place between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, which failed. Thereafter, the offer submitted by the respondent No.5 was accepted vide letter dated 20-7-2011 (Annexure - P/4). An agreement also to the effect was executed on 22-7-2011 (Annexure - P/5 & P/6). It is further contended that the respondent No. 5 never participated in the NIT process and the petitioner was one of the qualified tenderer, thus granting work of transportation of food grains to the respondent No.5 on the basis of his offer, which may be lesser than the petitioner''s offer, was bad and illegal.

On the other hand, Shri Majid Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 & 3, would submit that the respondent No.5 was a successful bidder for transportation of food grains for the year 2010-11 at the rate of Rs.180/- per MT. Since the rate quoted by the petitioner was much higher and the tender of the respondent No.4 was disqualified, looking into the importance and expedience of work that involves supply of food grains under the Public Distribution System (for short "the PDS"), the rate quoted by the respondent No.5 was accepted and the orders were passed in favour of the respondent No.5. Now the period of supply of food grains has already come to an end, as the period of contract was for the financial year 2011-12.

Shri Majid Ali would further submit that, in fact, the respondent No.5 submitted his offer along with the petitioner and the respondent No.4, but the same was not opened, as the envelope did not endorse his name. Thus, in view of the urgency and the necessity of regular supply of food grains, the respondent authorities have taken a decision to give a chance to the respondent No.5, as he was successful bidder during the financial year 2010-11 to supply food grains. The rate offered by the petitioner was at the rate of Rs.390/- per MT and during the course of negotiation, the petitioner was offered Rs.370/- per MT and thereafter, the petitioner was not ready to settle the amount at a reasonable rate.

In rejoinder the petitioner made an offer that the petitioner is ready and willing to work at the rate of Rs.234/- per MT, if he is granted permission to transport the food grains for the remaining period.

We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.

The petitioner offered higher rate for transportation of food grains i.e. initially Rs.390/- per MT and during the course of negotiation reduced to Rs.370/- per MT, therefore, the negotiation for reasonable price failed, as is evident from notings of Annexure - P/3. Thereafter, having regard to the urgency of the work of transportation of food grains, work of transportation was allotted to the respondent No.5, who had been successful bidder in the year 2010-11 and for transportation of food grains during the financial year 2011-12, the respondent No.5 offered his rate at Rs.234/- per MT.

The period of contract come to an end on 31st March, 2012. Thereafter, it appears that on the same rate for further three months it has been extended in favour of the respondent No.5, under clause 4.2 of the terms and conditions of the contract.

In view of the above, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in awarding the transportation work in favour of the respondent No.5, as the supply of food grains under the PDS could not have been stopped even for one day. Thus, the decision of the authorities for award of work for transportation of food grains in favour of the respondent No.5 is just & proper, warranting no interference. Even otherwise, the petition has become academic today, as the contract period was only for the financial year 2011-12, which has come an end on 31st March, 2012.

Law in this regard is well settled that if the petition has become infructuous on the facts of the case, the question of law, however important may be, becomes of academic interest which cannot be adjudicated upon. Accordingly, the question of law raised herein may be decided in an appropriate case. (See: Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India & Others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Others, State of Manipur & Others v. Chandan Manihar Singh, Arnit Das v. State of Bihar and Prakash Singh Badal & Another v. State of Punjab & Others).

The case of Shiv Kumar Mishra v. President, Industrial Court & Others, was dismissed by this Court on the similar ground against which the petitioner therein preferred a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 10334/2010 before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26-3-2010, upholding the order passed by this Court. As an upshot, the writ petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.