Sehgal and Company vs Food Corporation of India and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order Annexure P7 vide which Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India (hereinafter described as ''the Corporation'') Haryana Region awarded handling and transport contract to respondent No. 5.

The only ground on which the petitioner has questioned the legality of the impugned action is that the official respondents did not allow ft to compete and negotiate along with respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the matter of award of contract in spite of the fact that the rates offered by it were similar to those offered by respondent No. 5. According to the petitioner, the Corporation was duty bound to invite it for negotiations on 17.7.1998, the date on which respondent No. 5 was called for that purpose and failure of the Senior Regional Manger to do so has resulted in violation of its fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The respondents have not only challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to file this petition but have also contested its plea that they should have awarded the contract to it in pursuance of the notice Annexure P1

After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to make a detailed elucidation of the points raised by the petitioner because a perusal of the record produced by the learned counsel representing the Corporation reveals that the committee constituted by the Senior Regional Manager had objectively considered the offers made by the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and then recommended the allotment of the contract to respondent No. 5. A look at these recommendations shows the following two reasons which weighed with the Committee for not recommending the petitioner''s case for allotment of contract:-

The petitioner did not have the experience of doing work of similar type.

One of its partners, namely, Jaswant Sehgal was a partner of M/s Vohra and Co., who was engaged in handling and transport work, had not performed satisfactorily.

In our opinion, the two reasons recorded by the Committee are neither extraneous nor irrelevant and, therefore, the award of contract to respondent No. 5 cannot be declared as arbitrary or unconstitutional, particularly when the petitioner has not made any allegation of personal ill will, mala fides or bias against the officers of the Corporation. We are also conscious of the fact that in such like matters which fall primarily in the realm of contract, the, scope of judicial review is extremely limited and the Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the public authorities in the matter of award of contracts etc. unless it is proved that the impugned action is vitiated by mala fides or patent arbitrariness justifying the charge of violation of the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. The amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the Court''s order dated 23.3.1999 shall be refunded to it by the registry.