AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijender Jain, C.J.
C.M. No. 16902 of 2007
C.M. allowed. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 5 is taken on record.
The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in allotting the contract for lifting of foodgrains from Chabal, District Amritsar to respondent No. 7.
It was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he was the existing contractor and was carrying out the work on behalf of the Punjab Civil Supplies (PUNSUP) and according to the Clause 11, he was entitled to carry on the work even after the change of the procurement agency. Clause 11 is as below:
If at any center tender of Labour Contractor have been accepted by Committee but that center is charged to other purchase agency during session than in that event first purchase agency contractor will have to work on the same rate for second purchase agency which was accepted by first purchase agency. Besides this the Labour Contractors will have to deposit security with second purchase agency failing which his tender rate will not be accepted.
It was the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that earlier Chabal Center was being handled by PUNSUP but subsequently the same was given to PUNGRAIN and in view of the aforesaid clause, if a center is changed to other purchase agency during the session then in that event that ongoing contractor will carry out the work on the same rate as was being done by him at the time when the change was effected. It was further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he had been doing the work at 10% above the prescribed rates and he was willing to carry out the work at the same rate, but the work was allotted to respondent No. 7 as at an exorbitantly higher rate i.e. 27% above schedule rate, and hence the challenge to the action of the respondents.
The respondents who had filed separate written statements contended that the petitioner had participated in the process of tender and submitted rates which were 34% above the scheduled rate, whereas respondent No. 7 had submitted rate at 27% above scheduled rate. It was further pleaded that the center of Chabal had been handed over to PUNGRAIN and Clause-11 was of no consequence to the case of the petitioner. Besides the petitioner having participated in the process of tender and having submitted higher rates had no right to challenge the issuance of the contract in favour of the respondent No. 7 at this stage.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record.
Clause-11 as referred to above by the petitioner is of no consequence to his case as it talks only of a change of a procurement agency during an existing session but in the case of a procurement agency changed for a subsequent procurement session for a different crop then Clause 11 has no applicability. The petitioner had been working for the PUNSUP during the wheat procurement session but for the subsequent session of Kharif the procurement process had been given to the PUNGRAIN which had invited the tenders in which the petitioner had participated. He has concededly quoted more rates i.e. 34% ASOR, whereas respondent No. 7 had quoted 27% ASOR. The respondents were very well within their rights to offer the tender/contract to a person who was the lowest bidder amongst the two. No other infirmity has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of which the decision making process could be said to be tainted.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed.