Sukhdev Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The respondents floated a tender notice regarding work of transportation of foodgrains and labour/cartage/storage point/open plinths and P.E.G. Warehouses for purchase agencies of Punjab Government and FCI for the year 2014-15 for Rabi and Kharif crops from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015. It is not in dispute that the tender as floated referred to the tender forms for a composite work. However, the petitioner submitted a tender only for the labour work.

The petitioner filed CWP No. 7111 of 2014 making a grievance that the tenders which were opened on 25.3.2014 found the petitioner''s tender most competitive for 7 out of 25 Mandies, but in respect of labour work. He claims that on approaching the respondents, he was informed to get permission from Director, PUNGRAIN while no such condition was imposed in the tender and, thus, served a legal notice dated 2.4.2014 on respondent No. 5-District, Food & Supply Controller, Sangrur. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 11.4.2014 with a direction to examine the legal notice and to communicate a reasoned decision to the petitioner thereafter.

The reasoned decision has thereafter been communicated as per Annexure P-5 in pursuance to the aforesaid directions. The relevant portion reads as under:-

It was found that the petitioner was not eligible for the tender as he did not fulfil the requisite conditions of tender which is a part and parcel of Labour and Cartage policy. As per clause 5 of the policy, the single tender will be entertained for the work of labour and cartage. If separate tenders are to be entertained for the work of labour and cartage then it can only be done after obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner/Director Food and supply which is a mandatory condition as per clause 5 of the Labour and Cartage policy.

However the tender applied by the petitioner was only for labour work. So as per clause 5 of the policy, the tender of the petitioner was not entertained as it lacks requisite requirement. However, the petitioner applied another tender for both labour and cartage for mandi Gehlan which was duly allotted to him as per policy. In view of the aforesaid facts, it was found that the petitioner was not eligible for the tender.

It is the aforesaid decision which is now sought to be assailed in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, but are not persuaded to intervene in the matter. The reason for the same is that the petitioner was not eligible for the tender on account of his not submitting a composite tender which is part and parcel of the labour and cartage policy. The applicability of the policy is not in dispute. Clause-5 of the policy provides that a single tender will be entertained for the work of labour and cartage. The advertisement referred to the said policy. If separate tenders are to be entertained for the work of labour and cartage, then prior approval has to be obtained from the Director, Food & Supplies. In the present case, there was no such prior approval obtained. It is not as if the petitioner was unaware of this fact as wherever he submitted a joint tender and was successful, allotment as per policy has been made to him. The fact that for some other tender prior permission was taken and thereafter separate tenders called would not, thus, assist the petitioner. The relevant Clause-5 forming part of Annexure P-6 reads as under:-

Combined tenders shall be taken for the work of Labour, Cartage and storage point (open plinth) for each market (mandi). With main consideration of circumstances of the spot, for the work of labour and cartage (different--different) separate tenders shall be received upon the recommendation of District Controller, Food and supplies Department and with the prior permission of commissioner/Director, Food Supplies and consumer Affairs Department, Punjab within the area of 8 KMs. Tenders for above 8 kilometers shall be asked through transport. Advertisement through press be given for the tenders for the work of labour and cartage storage points (open plinth) so that information can reach more tender aspirants.

In view of the aforesaid, the reliance placed by the petitioner on Clause-12, quoted hereinafter, is of no avail:

Minimum rates that is (L-1) received by tender allotment committee shall be accepted/approved.

The question of the petitioner''s quoting the minimum rate would arise only if proper tender is submitted which in turn, as per Clause-5, has to be a composite tender for both labour and cartage which undisputedly the petitioner did not submit in the tender in question. There was no prior permission for segregating the two tenders.

We, thus, find no merit in this petition.

Dismissed.