Dismissed

M/S Dashmesh Goods Carrier v. Food Corporation of India & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Oct 2016CWP/21214/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Food Corporation of India to accept a missing EPF affidavit submitted after the tender deadline due to technical errors. The High Court dismissed the petition, citing judicial restraint in commercial transactions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to accept the belated EPF affidavit was refused; the writ petition was dismissed.

M/S Dashmesh Goods Carrier Vs Food… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.21214 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.21214 of 2016 Date of decision: 07.10.2016

¶5

M/s Dashmesh Goods Carrier (Regd.)

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Food Corporation of India (Punjab) and another ..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶10

Present: Mr. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶12

In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation/email dated 27.09.2016 (Annexure P-4) and accept the affidavit/declaration before allotment of contract, in respect of Employees Provident Fund, which could not be submitted/uploaded along with the tender documents due to some technical fault on 26.09.2016.

¶13

A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition as narrated therein may be noticed. Respondent No.1 floated public tender for appointment of transport contractor at Raikot, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur for carrying out transport work from various godowns to rail head.

¶14

As per the instructions, petitioner got all the documents uploaded and

¶15

Ravinder Singh 2016.10.17 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶16

-2-

¶17

CWP No.21214 of 2016

¶18

submitted along with tender on 26.09.2016 i.e. the last day for submission of tender. After the petitioner came to know that at the time of uploading of Format B “Affidavit” to be submitted in respect of payment of EPF defaults by bidders who are not having any EPF proceedings pending against them at the time of submission of tenders”, the frontside of the affidavit was not uploaded and only backside of the affidavit was uploaded, the petitioner immediately submitted representation/email dated 27.09.2016 at 8.49 a.m. to respondent No.1 to the effect that affidavit regarding EPF (frontside) was not uploaded due to some technical reason and further submitted the affidavit and requested to take it on record and consider the same at the time of the technical evaluation of tender to be held on 27.09.2016. On 27.09.2016 when petitioner approached the office of respondent No.1, it was informed orally that his tender will not be entertained since the affidavit has not been submitted properly. Hence, present writ petition.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶20

The Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others 2007(14) SCC 517 had held that the contract is a commercial transaction and the Court's indulgence in such matter should be minimal. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The Court should exercise judicial restraint unless illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the Government in these matters is apparent. No ground for interference Ravinder Singh 2016.10.17 10:50I attest to the accuracy andby this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is made authenticity of this document

¶21

-3-

¶22

CWP No.21214 of 2016

¶23

out. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶24

( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 07, 2016 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) R.S. JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶25

Ravinder Singh 2016.10.17 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

M/S Dashmesh Goods Carrier v. Food Corporation of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Dashmesh Goods Carrier v. Food Corporation of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balwan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Shanti Devi Vs Central Bank of India and Ors.

Kanwaljit Singh Lali Vs the Delimitation Commission of India and Ors.

Kamal Kishore Vs State of Punjab and Ors.