Dismissed

Manjit Singh @ Kaka v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2013CWP/8255/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's tender application regarding government procurement. The court held that the petitioner was the second lowest bidder. The earlier order had not mandated reopening finalized contracts for already accepted bids, rendering the respondents action legal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed for issuance of certiorari was dismissed finding no merit and no illegality in the rejection of the petitioner's tender.

Manjit Singh @ Kaka Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.8255 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.8255 of 2013(O & M) Date of decision:07.05.2013

¶5

Manjit Singh @ Kaka .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab & others ......Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Present: Mr.Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Amit Singh Sethi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶11

Mr. Manav Bajaj, Advocate, for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶12

Mr. Bharat B. Sethi, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶13

Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶14

Mr. Sandeep Siwatch, Advocate, for Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

¶15

Mr. Neten Narula, Advocate, for respondent No.7.

¶16

Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 8.

¶17

Mr.Mandeep Singh Khillan, Advocate, for respondent No.11.

¶18

¶19

G.S.Sandhawalia J.

¶20

CM No.7090-CWP of 2013

¶21

Written statement on behalf of respondent No.3 filed alongwith the

¶22

application is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶23

C.M. application stands disposed of.

¶24

CWP No.8255 of 2013

¶25

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the

¶26

¶27

CWP No.8255 of 2013

¶28

nature of certiorari for setting aside order/letter dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure P-5) vide which the tender application of the petitioner was not accepted inspite of the orders of this Court passed on 10.04.2013 in CWP No.7706 of 2013. It is further prayed that the allotment of tender to respondent No.9 should also be quashed and to consider the tender application of the petitioner.

¶29

The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he is the President of Truck Union, Sunam and used to carry wheat and paddy which was procured by the respondents and was to submit his tender application. However, he was detained illegally by the police on 03.04.2013 in connivance with respondent No.11 and the tender was allotted to respondent No.11, being the sole applicant. The petitioner filed CWP No.7706 of 2013 which came up for hearing on 10.04.2013 and a direction was issued to the respondent-Department to accept the tender of the petitioner on 10.04.2013. The petitioner had submitted his tender application but the respondents, vide order dated 11.04.2013, had intimated to the petitioner that some of the tenders regarding the cartage had already been allotted. Accordingly, challenge was raised to the said communication that it amounted to disobeying the orders of this Court.

¶30

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.8 & 10, it has been averred that tender bids were required to be submitted by 03.04.2013 and the said tender bids were to be opened for Sangrur District on 04.04.2013, as per tender notice dated 30.03.2013, for the loading, unloading and labour/cartage at various purchase centres/mandis/godowns in the State of Punjab on behalf of the procurement agencies for Sunam and its sub-centres. The bid of respondent No.11 was accepted being L-1 for the work of cartage. Since the tender for the work of transportation and cartage for various purchase centres/mandis/open plinths/godowns had to be finalized, fresh tender notice dated 07.04.2013 was invited by the respondents for the remaining work for which tender had not been

¶31

¶32

CWP No.8255 of 2013

¶33

allotted. The petitioner had filed CWP No.7706 of 2013 which was disposed of on 10.04.2013 and the petitioner was allowed to submit his tender which was opened on 11.04.2013. On the opening of the tender, it was found that the petitioner had submitted the tenders for labour/cartage and transportation and on examining the tenders for labour/cartage, it was found that the work of the purchase centres had already been allotted to respondent No.11 and this fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner. He had concealed the material facts from this Court. Rather, the petitioner was present in the District office of the respondents which would be clear from the videography conducted by the respondents at the time of submission of tender bids and was at liberty to submit his tender bids but he refrained himself from submitting his tender bids. The Clerk of the petitioner, Sant Singh Sekhon was present at the time of sealing of the tender boxes and the petitioner was never stopped from submitting his bids and he was very much present at the time of sealing of the tender.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner contended that an undertaking had been given on behalf of respondents No.8 & 10 before this Court on 10.04.2013 in CWP No.7706 of 2013 that in case the petitioner gave his bid on 10.04.2013, the same would be duly accepted along with other tenderers, in accordance with law. Thus, the respondents could not have rejected the bid of the petitioner on the ground that the tenders for labour and cartage had already been approved.

¶35

Counsel for respondents No.8 & 10, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has misrepresented before this Court at the earlier point of time as the contract had already been awarded to respondent No.11 for the work of cartage and therefore, the question of accepting his tender for the said work could not be considered. For the work of labour, the bid of the petitioner was duly considered and he was found not to be the lowest tenderer and accordingly, tender work was not awarded to him.

¶36

CWP No.8255 of 2013

¶37

¶38

After hearing counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. As urged by the learned counsel for respondents No.8 & 10, the subsequent tender notice was for the balance work and included other purchase centres for District Sangrur. The categorical case of the respondents is that the bid of the petitioner was to be considered for the balance work which remained unallotted in pursuance to earlier tender notice. The order dated 10.04.2013 has been complied with in as much as the case of the petitioner has been considered for the tenders which were for the balance work. The petitioner submitted his tender application for labour on 10.04.2013 which was considered but he was not successful on account of the fact that he was L-2 tenderer and thus, was not the lowest tenderer.

¶39

In view the fact that the tender notice was only for the balance work, the petitioner cannot seek nullifying of the cartage contract which already stood finalised on earlier occasion. This Court had never directed to reopen the tenders which had already been accepted and finalised. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the action of the respondents whereby they rejected the case of the petitioner vide letter dated 11.04.2013. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶41

07.05.2013 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) sailesh JUDGE

Manjit Singh @ Kaka v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Singh @ Kaka v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

A.C.Nagpal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sandeep and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S N.C.J. Estate Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Amar Nath & Co. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jakir Hussain Vs State of Haryana Etc.\