Petitioner challenged award of tenders to other parties in road transportation contract. Bench held applicants erred in raising issues regarding improper form filling after respondents explained proforma adequately. Petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed with no special relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.13750 of 2012
[ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.13750 of 2012 Date of decision:09.10.2012
Mange Ram ...Petitioner Vs.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 and 5 to 8. *****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
As per the averments made in the writ petition, respondent No.1, being a Public Sector Undertaking, invited sealed tenders under Two-Bid System from tank lorry owners for award of contract for road transportation of bulk petroleum products w.e.f. 15.11.2011 for a period of two years with option of extension of a period of one year. The tender was invited for locations Ex-Rewari, Piyala, Hissar and Panipat giving details of the estimated requirement of tank lorries for capacity upto 12 KL and for capacity above 12KL. The last date for submission of tender documents was 14.11.2011 at 2.00 p.m.
The petitioner, allegedly owner of two tank lorries, filled up
CWP No.13750 of 2012 [ 2 ]
the tender for Hissar location. He received a letter on 25.11.2011 from respondent No.1 of his qualifying the technical bid stage. The date for opening of the price bid was scheduled as 01.12.2011 at 3.00 p.m. Out of the total 38 bidders, 22 L1 bidders were issued Letters of Intent, whereas the petitioner, at the time of opening of price bid, was declared as L2 bidder.
The grievance of the petitioner is regarding award of Letter of Intent to respondent Nos.3 to 8. It is submitted that the price in words had to be filled up in a proper manner which is also acceptable in the banking transactions, for example as they have written “Paisa One Hundred Eighty One and Eighty Only” instead of writing “One Hundred Eighty One decimal Eighty Paisa only”. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 has taken less tank lorries having capacity up to 12 KL, i.e. 70 numbers of tank lorries, whereas the requirement was of 88 tank lorries and on the other hand against the requirement of 57 tank lorries above 12KL capacity, respondent No.1 had taken the services of 78 tank lorries.
In reply filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, it was alleged that the proforma relating to price bid would show that word “Paisa” has been printed and words and figures quoted by the Bidders in Annexure P-6 clearly makes out what price has been quoted by concerned Bidders which has been considered valid by them. It is alleged that banking norms do not apply to the tendering procedure applied by them, where there is no stipulation as to in what precise manner the figures and words quoting price is to be mentioned by the bidders. It is further alleged that the total
CWP No.13750 of 2012
[ 3 ]
requirement of tank lorries by them of the capacity upto 12KL and above 12KL was approximately 145 for all the locations in the State of Haryana. While evaluating the total tank lorries offered by L1 bidders, the number came out to be 163 which were much more than their requirement. The segregation of tank lorries upto 12KL and above 12KL capacity is only for their operational purposes and as a matter of fact, the tank lorries offered by L1 bidders upto 12KL capacity were less in number than the tank lorries above 12KL capacity. However, the total L1 tank lorries specified were more than their business requirement, therefore, the necessity to have negotiations with L2 bidders did not arise. It is also alleged that during tender implementation process, one of the bidders having 15 tank lorries got black-listed due to mal-practices and, therefore, the said bidder was not considered and finally 148 tank lorries of L1 bidders were inducted against total requirement of 145 tank lorries. This decision to induct more tank lorries of above 12KL capacity and less number of tank lorries upto 12KL capacity was also prompted because of the fact that the tank lorries with capacity of above 12KL capacity were offered for lesser rates and was in their interest.
Similar averments have been made by the private respondents in their replies.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the available record, we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot make mountain out of a molehill by raising the issue of not proper filling up of tender form which has been duly explained by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the reply on merits, which read as
CWP No.13750 of 2012
[ 4 ]
under:-
“12. That in reply to contents of this para it is submitted that a glance through proforma relating to price Bid would show that word “Paisa” has been printed and words and figures quoted by the Bidders in annexure P6 clearly make out what price has been quoted by concerned Bidders which has been considered valid by the answering respondent. Hence, the plea of the petitioner is unjustified.
Moreover, the petitioner was not given the contract being L2 bidder because his price was the same which has been quoted by the company. As regards the requirement of tank lorries, detailed reply is given in this regard in para No.14 of the reply filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
(A.K.Sikri) (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Chief Justice Judge
October 09, 2012 vinod*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for contract after proper explanation of tender form filling by respondents.
Whether the manner of filling price in tender was objectionable.
Mange Ram
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Rakesh Kumar Jain
A.K. Sikri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
