Red Rose Co-operative Labour and Construction Ltd. vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.—Challenge herein is to tender notice, Annexure P-7 and in consequence of setting aside thereof, to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Executive Engineer, Amritsar Drainage Division, Amritsar-respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner society to carry out the works of items Nos. 23, 25 to 28, 30 to 32 and 35 to 38 as per list of works, Annexure P-1 for which its tenders were found to be the lowest on the rates quoted by it therein and on which rates the petitioners is still ready and willing to execute the said works after execution of the work orders.

Brief facts of the case reveal that vide tender notice dated 8-1-1998, respondent No. 3. The Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Amritsar, invited tenders from ''A'' class contractors and Labour and Constriction Societies for 47 items of works, Annexure P-1. Petitioner society, being eligible, submitted tenders separately for a number of items of works on 28-1-1998. It also deposited Rs. 1,000/- separately for each item of work. Last date for submission of tenders was 29-1-1998. When the tenders were opened, rates submitted by the petitioner Society for 12 items of works were found to be the lowest as compared to the rates submitted by other applicants. However, respondent No. 3 did not call the petitioner society for execution of the said 12 items of works. After waiting for over four months, the petitioner society addressed letter dated 4-6-1998 requesting respondent No. 3 to inform it as to when the works could be started. Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 10-7-1998 informed the petitioner that funds for the execution of the said 12 items of works were not available. About two months later, funds for the said items of works were, however, released by the Government and petitioner society addressed letter on 16-9-1998 to respondent No. 3, requesting to inform the petitioner as to when its representative should attend their office to start the works. No reply was, however, sent to the petitioner. On 20-9-1998 the Executive Engineer was transferred and Shri R. K. Choudhary joined in his place. Shri Choudhary did not call the petitioner society for execution of the works and wanted to invited fresh tenders. Petitioner sent telegrams on 20-9-1998 to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and Executive Engineer, Quality Control and Vigilance Division informing them that even though the funds were available, the work was not being allotted to the petitioner. Vide telegram dated 22-2-1999 the petitioner offered that even after a year, it was ready to execute the works at the rates offered in January, 1998. On 6-4-1999 Shri Choudhary, Executive Engineer was also transferred and in his place Shri Kuljit Singh joined. Soon after his joining, Shri Kuljit Singh issued fresh notice inviting tenders dated 6-4-1999 for 91 items of works involving an approximate cost of Rs. 17.50 crores. It is the case of petitioner that it was done with a view to favour his own agencies. On coming to know of the tender notice. Annexure P-7, petitioner sent telegram on 15-4-1999 to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and the Executive Engineer, Quality Control and Vigilance Division pointing out illegalities and irregularities in the issuance of tender notice and also requested for personal hearing. Last date for submission of tenders was 16-4-1999. 12 items, for which the petitioner had given lowest rates in January, 1998 were also mentioned in the list of works annexed to the tender notice, Annexure P-7. It is the case of the petitioner that tender notice, Annexure P-7 is liable to be quashed and the said 12 items of works should be allotted to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the petition, contends that even though the total approximate cost of works was Rs. 17.50 crores, the tender notice was not published in any newspaper but was only pasted on the notice board outside the office of respondent No. 3. Barely ten days time was given to the applicants to submit tenders, out of which five days (10th to 14th April, 1999) were declared as holidays by the Government of Punjab. Further, inasmuch as petitioner had given lowest tender with regard to 12 items of work mentioned in Annexure P-7 and which tender was never rejected by respondent No. 2 and further that the petitioner was even today ready to execute the said works at the rates quotes in January, 1998, there was no question that fresh tender should be floated for these items as well.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the records of the case, we find absolutely no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel, noted above. Issuance of a tender notice is only invitation to the eligible persons to apply. Someone making an offer pursuant to tender notice even though the rates quoted by it may be the lowest, does not get any vested right. Concededly, neither the 12 items for which petitioner had filed in tender nor any one else, who might have filled in tender with regard to other items, was ever allotted work. A period of more than a year lasped and when fresh tenders were floated, petitioner would have been within its right to apply and contest for the grant of conduct along with others. May be, that the time given for submitting tenders were only ten days, out of which four were holidays, but it had to be conceded during the course of arguments that insofar as petitioner is concerned, it did come to know about the fact that tenders have been invited. The petitioner could, thus, apply for the works mentioned in tender notice, Annexure P-17 and contest with other eligible applicants. The plea put forward by the petitioner that time allowed to fill in tenders was too short, can well be taken by someone else and not by the petitioner, who, as mentioned above, did come to know about the tender notice, Annexure P-7. The mere fact that the petitioner had given the lower tender for 12 items when tender notice was earlier issued, pursuant to which no body was every given the contract, cannot vest the petitioner with any right to get the contract for the said items when fresh tender notice was issued after more than a year.

Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss this petition in limine.

Petition dismissed.