Allowed

R. S. Labour and Transport Contractor v. Food Corporation of India and Anr.

Delhi HC7 Jan 2019W.P.(C)/5963/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the award of a foodgrains transportation contract. After earlier restraining the Food Corporation of India (FCI) due to eligibility concerns with the successful tenderer, the Court granted liberty to FCI to retender the contract, holding the petitioner had no enforceable entitlement while eligibility conditions were a

What did the court decide?

Respondents granted liberty to re-tender the contract, provided eligibility conditions are appropriately amended; writ petition disposed of.

R. S. Labour and Transport Contractor Vs Food… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5963/2018

¶4

R. S. LABOUR AND TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Jasbir Singh Malik, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Manoj, Standing Counsel with Ms.Aparna Sinha, Advocate for R-1/FCI

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶9

O R D E R % 07.01.2019

¶10

W.P.(C) 5963/2018 & CM APPL. Nos.23226 & 47119 of 2018

¶11

By the application [CM APPL. 47119/2018], the respondent No.1/Food Corporation of India [hereafter referred to as “FCI”] seeks permission to issue fresh tenders.

¶12

We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the application as well as the main writ proceedings. The petitioner’s grievance was that despite serious objections as to the eligibility of the respondent No.2 [who was ultimately granted the contract and declared as the successful tenderer], the FCI awarded the tender [issued on 23.03.2018] for transportation of

¶13

W.P.(C) 5963/2018

¶14

page 1 of 3

¶15

foodgrains and allied materials etc., within and around FSD Mayapuri, Delhi Region. The petitioner, a registered firm, applied and bid for the contract – the tender was predicated upon a contract in force for two years. It appears that on 02.05.2018, FCI uploaded the status of the tender and confirmed that there are only two bids. The petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent No.2, who defaulted in many respects, was found to be technically feasible and eligible to be awarded the contract.

¶16

Various grounds were urged in respect of the writ petition; on the first date of hearing i.e. 29.05.2018, the Court expressed its reservation with respect to the award of contract to the respondent No.2 and restrained FCI from proceeding ahead and granting the contract. This order has remained undisturbed and continues to bind the parties, even today. In the application [CM APPL. 47119/2018], the FCI submits that having regard to the objections articulated in this writ petition with respect to the eligibility of the respondent No.2, it is proposed to retender the contract. The petitioner, of course, opposes this move and contends that if the respondent No.2 was not eligible, it was logical to award the contract to them, as they are the sole eligible bidder. This Court is unpersuaded with this submission. In this case, there were undoubtedly serious objections with respect to the respondent No.2’s eligibility, however, as far as the rates are concerned, undoubtedly, that party offered better rates. The elimination of the respondent No.2 would ordinarily mean that the petitioner could have been granted the contract by the respondent No.1. However, if the FCI, given the totality of circumstances and the reservations expressed by the Court, formed an opinion that it would be in the larger public interest to re-tender W.P.(C) 5963/2018 page 2 of 3

¶17

page 2 of 3

¶18

and invite fresh bids, that decision per se cannot be characterised as illegal or malafide, only because it does not suit or injures the interest of the petitioner. At this stage the petitioner has only a right to be considered if they fulfil the eligibility conditions. As of now, the petitioner’s rights are inchoate and have not crystallized into any enforceable entitlement.

¶19

For these reasons, this Court is of the opinion, that there is no merit in this argument. The respondents are hereby granted liberty to re-tender the contract, provided the eligibility conditions are appropriately amended.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶22

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶23

JANUARY 07, 2019 „hkaur‟

¶24

W.P.(C) 5963/2018

¶25

page 3 of 3

R. S. Labour and Transport Contractor v. Food Corporation of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. S. Labour and Transport Contractor v. Food Corporation of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special RANGE-6, New Delhi

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi

Sheetal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. (Ms.) Banti M. Singh Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Bipin Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Hemant Verma @ Hemant Gogna Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Simplex Projects Limited Vs Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Government of India & Ors.

M/S Simplex Projects Ltd. Vs Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Governmet of India & Ors.

Jai Shiv Trading Co. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import)

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Jain Medicos Vs Union of India & Ors.