Dismissed

New Nagraj & Co. v. State of Haryana &Ors

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2013CWP/7144/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the allotment of a labour and cartage tender to M/s Mahavir and Company. The court held that the allotment was valid as it was made pursuant to a third tender notice which did not require a PAN number, unlike the cancelled preceding notices. Additionally, the successful bidder offered a lower rate after negotiation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the allotment of the tender was dismissed.

New Nagraj & Co. Vs State of Haryana &Ors — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 7144 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.7144 of 2013 Date of decision: 27.05.2013

¶5

New Nagraj and company ….Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Haryana and others

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

*********

¶11

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

¶12

judgment?

¶13

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

*****

¶16

Present: Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶17

Mr. S.S.Pattar, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents no.1,2,6 and 8.

¶18

Mr. P.S.Punia, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶19

Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶20

Ms.Madhu Dayal, Advocate for respondent no.5.

¶21

Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for respondent no.7.

¶22

Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for respondent no.9.

¶23

¶24

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

¶25

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 20.3.2013 (Annexure P-4) claiming that the Tender Committee had released the tenders in favour of respondent no.9 illegally and in violation of terms and conditions of the labour and cartage tender for the

¶26

CWP No. 7144 of 2013

¶27

-2-

¶28

year 2013-14 (Annexure P-1).

¶29

The pleaded case of the petitioner, who is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is that the District Food and Supplies Controller, Kaithal had taken a decision to invite tenders for doing various labour and cartage operations, which was published in the newspapers on 8.3.2013 and tenders were invited for 14.3.2013. The said tender notice was cancelled for the reasons best known to the authorities. The tenders were invited again, which were also cancelled. Thereafter, vide public notice dated 17.3.2013 (Annexure P-3) tenders were invited for 20.3.2013. It was further pleaded that the petitioner and the private respondents had submitted their respective applications along with others for four tenders for the four departments i.e. Food and Supply Department, HAFED, Haryana Agro and Haryana Warehousing Corporation. The tenders had been released in favour of M/s Mahavir and Company-respondent no.9 on 20.3.2013 which was not a registered company. It was neither having PAN number nor did it fulfill the requisite requirements as per Annexures P-5 to P-9 and, therefore, the tenders could not have been allotted to it.

¶30

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.2,6 and 8, it was pleaded that the petition was result of frustration and business rivalry and tenders were given for each mandi/procuring agency separately and the petitioner as well as respondent no.9 applied for the same. The tenders were opened as per rules and the rates of M/s Mahavir and Company-respondent no.9 were 586% which were found lower than that of the petitioner which was @ 685%. The Committee negotiated with the tenderers wherein respondent no.9

¶31

CWP No. 7144 of 2013

¶32

-3-

¶33

further agreed to do the work @ 580% which was much lower than the petitioner's rates. Accordingly, the tender was allotted in favour of respondent no.9 which had been opened and allotted in the presence of representatives of tenderers. No objection was raised by the petitioner. It was further submitted that due to higher rates and non participation of sufficient tenderers, the tenders had to be again published and the Committee reserved the right to accept/reject the tender at any time without assigning any reason thereof. There is no pre-requirement of the tender policy that partnership firm must be registered and only attested copy of partnership deed was required and the same was submitted by respondent no.9 and the various partners of the firm had submitted their PAN numbers. Accordingly, the plea was taken that the allotment of tenders was in accordance with law.

¶34

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5, similar plea was taken.

¶35

Respondent no.9 in its written statement pleaded that it had been wrongly submitted before this Court on 8.4.2013 that each tenderer was required to submit photocopy of the PAN number and in the absence of PAN number tender form would not be entertained after placing reliance upon tender notice (Annexure P-1). It was pleaded that the petitioner had relied upon wrong tender notice and the tender had not been allotted on the basis of tender notice (Annexure P-1). The contract had been awarded to respondent no.9 on the basis of tender notice dated 17.3.2013 (Annexure P-3) in which there was no condition that the tender form must be accompanied by the PAN number. The firm was having seven partners and PAN numbers of the partners were

¶36

-4-

¶37

CWP No. 7144 of 2013

¶38

submitted along with the tender form and the firm was also got registered on 29.3.2013 and it had started working with effect from 1.4.2013.

¶39

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per the terms and conditions of Annexure P-1, the tenderer is required to submit photocopy of the PAN number and in the absence of PAN number, the tender form could not be entertained and thus submitted that respondent no.9 had been wrongly allotted the work.

¶40

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon tender notice (Annexure P-3) to submit that in the said notice no such condition for submitting photocopy of PAN number was imposed and respondent no.9, which is a partnership firm submitted PAN numbers of its partners and, therefore, in the absence of any mandatory clause, it had been rightly awarded the contract.

¶41

After hearing the counsel for the parties, it is noticed that as per the petitioner itself, the first tender notice (Annexure P-1) was published on 8.3.2013, which was cancelled and thereafter even the second tender notice was also cancelled. The third tender notice (Annexure P-3) was published on 17.3.2013, in pursuance of which respondent no.9 has been allotted work. A perusal of the notice dated 17.3.2013 (Annexure P-3) goes on to show that there was no such condition providing that tenderer was required to have PAN number which was the pre-condition in the earlier tender notice (Annexure P-1). Once the allotment is in pursuance of the subsequent tender notice (Annexure P-3), the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was mandatory for respondent no.9 to have a PAN number does

¶42

CWP No. 7144 of 2013 -5-

¶43

not carry any substance. Admittedly, the petitioner had applied in pursuance of the tender notice (Annexure P-3) and was unsuccessful and has thereafter approached this Court. Even otherwise on merits as well, the rate of the petitioner was 685% whereas the rate of respondent no.9 was 586%, which was further reduced to 580% on negotiations.

¶44

Thus, in view the above facts, the challenge to allotment of work in favour of respondent no.9 must fail. Accordingly, the writ petition

¶45

is dismissed.

¶46

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶47

27.5.2013 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) Pka JUDGE

New Nagraj & Co. v. State of Haryana &Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New Nagraj & Co. v. State of Haryana &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

Bhubneshwar Lal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Amit Traders Vs Punjab Mandi Board

Vaibhav Chaudhary Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kehar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Varadraj Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.