Dismissed

Darcl Logistics Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Aug 2014CWP/13329/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application to implead M/s Ram Pal & Co. as a respondent. Subsequently, a Civil Writ Petition challenging the rejection of a tender bid due to a clerical error in page numbers was dismissed, upholding the Food Corporation of India's decision.

What did the court decide?

Application to implead M/s Ram Pal & Co. allowed; Civil Writ Petition seeking quashing of rejection recommended dismissed.

Darcl Logistics Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

DINESH KUMAR 2014.08.27 15:31 1

¶2

CWP No. 13329 of 2014(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 13329 of 2014(O&M) Date of decision:-August 22,2014

DARCL Logistics Ltd.

..... Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and ors.

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

¶11

Present: Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Respondent No.1 already stands deleted vide order dated 14.07.2014.

¶13

Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶14

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶15

Mr.Narinder S. Lucky, Advocate for applicant (M/s Ram Pal & Co.).

¶16

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,A.C.J.(Oral

¶17

CM No.10019 of 2014

¶18

This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the applicant as one of the respondents in the array of memo of parties.

¶19

Notice. Learned counsel appearing for non-applicants accept

¶20

notice.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as other respondents

¶22

made no objection, if the application is allowed.

¶23

The application accordingly is allowed and M/s Ram Pal &

¶24

CWP No. 13329 of 2014(O&M)

¶25

¶26

Co., applicant is impleaded as respondent No.6.

¶27

Amended memo of parties annexed with the application, is taken on record.

¶28

CWP No.13329 of 2014

¶29

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned recommendations dated 27.06.2014 (Annexure P-9) of Regional Technical Bid Evaluation Committee of Food Corporation of India, respondent No.3 vide which technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the sole ground that page numbers in the Tender Submission Undertaking were mentioned as '01 to 54' whereas it should have been as '01 to 68'.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the tender notice (Ex.P-2) initiated with regard to the appointment of contractor for loading/unloading/handling and transportation of food grains for the centres of Uklana, Adampur and Jakhal, the petitioner submitted its bid through online process, as was required. In para No.2 of 'Tender Submission Undertaking', it was clearly specified that the petitioner has to give undertaking as follows:-

¶31

“I/We hereby certify that I/We have read the entire terms and conditions of the tender documents from Page No.1 to 68 (including all documents like annexure(s), schedule (s) , etc.) which form part of the contract agreement and I/we shall abide hereby by the terms/conditions/clauses contained therein”

¶32

The petitioner instead of writing pages No.1 to 68 has mentioned pages No. 1 to 54. On this sole ground, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected and its price bid was not opened.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a

¶34

CWP No. 13329 of 2014(O&M)

¶35

¶36

technical mistake on the part of the petitioner and on that basis, technical bid should not have been rejected. He further submits that last page of the tender form was numbered as 54 and so the petitioner was under the wrong impression that the last page of the tender form was 54 and not page No.68.

¶37

Once the persons desirous of getting the contract were asked to comply with all the conditions including condition No.2 which clearly specified that the tenderers shall give an undertaking stating that they have read the entire terms and conditions of the tender documents from pages 1 to 68 (including all documents like annexures) which form the part of agreement and shall comply with the terms and conditions of the tender contained therein, then there was no reason for the petitioner to have mentioned that it would comply with the conditions contained page No. 1 to 54 only.

¶38

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that as the petitioner has failed to give an undertaking that he would comply with the conditions as mentioned on page No. 1 to 68 of the tender form, therefore its technical bid has rightly been rejected and price bid not opened by the Food Corporation of India. Consequently, finding no ground to interfere in the impugned recommendations (Annexure P-9), the Civil Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶39

( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE

¶41

22.08.2014 dinesh

Darcl Logistics Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darcl Logistics Ltd. v. Union of India 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

Rajinder Yadav Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Joginder Nath Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ram Sarup and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hazoor Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Maharaja Agarsen Co-Op. House Building Society Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Kishan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.