Dismissed

S.B. Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Sept 2012CWP/15197/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in an application filed under Article 226 dismissed a writ petition challenging a government procurement tender. The court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria and thus lacked locus standi to intervene in the commercial transaction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed in limine due to lack of locus standi and absence of justification to entertain the matter.

S.B. Sharma Vs State of Haryana and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.15197 of 2012 [1]

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.15197 of 2012

¶4

Date of Decision: 21 – 9 – 2012

S.B.Sharma

....Petitioner

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶10

¶11

Present: Mr.Gourave Bhayyia Gilhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the RC against tender No.02/HR/RC/F-4/2011-2012 which was finalized in the month of April, 2012. A further prayer has been made that the implementation of the tender process be stayed.

¶15

The pleaded case of the petitioner is that a tender of wooden dual desks was floated by the Department of Supplies and Disposal, State of Haryana and various eligibility criterias were mentioned which were not fulfilled by the petitioner-firm. One M/s B.P.Ergo had also submitted letter

¶16

CWP No.15197 of 2012 [2]

¶17

dated 14.2.2012 showing their inability to fulfill the eligibility criteria. The petitioner-firm had met officials of the Department to modify the eligibility criteria and he came to know that M/s B.P.Ergo had been allowed to participate in the tender proceedings. The petitioner had written a letter on 1.5.2012 and thereafter a legal notice dated 26.6.2012 was sent to the Department but the contract was given by way of staged managed tender.

¶18

The petitioner-firm was in a position to provide better offer and competitive rates which were lesser than the actual price of the allotted tender and the tender of dual desks which was allotted was in a biased manner and the whole process was unfair and illegal.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to onerous conditions put in the terms of tender which provided that the firm should have a minimum turnover of Rs.15 crores in the last three years and should have supplied a minimum of 10,000 dual desks in one year during the past five years has resulted in monopolisation.

¶20

A perusal of the tender notice shows that technical and financial bids were to be submitted on 27.2.2012. The petitioner vide letter dated 6.2.2012 had represented to the Director, Supplies and Disposals, Haryana that the terms would prevent the Government from inviting vast competition and would limit the participation of many manufacturers. Accordingly, a request had been made to waive off the terms and give chance to the petitioner to participate in the tender proceedings. Once, the petitioner has not passed the muster for the eligibility clause, then he has no locus standi to challenge the contract which had been entered into by the Government with the private respondents. The entering into a contract by the official respondents is a commercial transaction and if they had

¶21

CWP No.15197 of 2012 [3]

¶22

prescribed that the tender firm should have a minimum turn over of Rs.15.00 crores in the last three years and should have supplied 10,000 dual desks to any recognized educational institution in one year during the past five years, it cannot be held that the said terms are arbitrary. It is for the Government to take decision and make its policies and if the Government wants to deal with certain set of manufacturers who have the requisite infrastructure to deliver goods, it cannot be forced to modify or amend its eligibility clauses for the suitability of the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, in view of the above, we do not find any justification to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine.

¶24

( G.S.SANDHAWALIA ) JUDGE

¶25

( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) September 21, 2012. JUDGE

¶26

S.B. Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.B. Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chand Vs State of Punjab and Others

Anand Parkash Vs Icici Bank & Others

M/S Vivek Alloys Vs State of Punjab and Others

Chadha Motors, Ghee Mandi, Amritsar Vs UOI and Ors.

The Guru Nanak Trust Operator Union Vs Food Corp. of India

M/S B.S. Builders Vs State of Punjab and Another