AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The petitioner is a Co-operative Labour and Construction Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioner participated in a tender floated by respondents No. 3 and 4. Respondent No. 3 is the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation constituted under the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, a Central Legislation. It is the say of the petitioner that as per Notification dated 11.7.2011 of the State Government of Punjab, the works in question are to be allotted only to the societies of the nature of the petitioner. Contrary to this, an open auction was held where the petitioner participated, but was not successful. The written statement of respondents No. 3 and 4 states that the said Notification extends to entities mentioned in Clause 8 thereof, which reads as under:-
The concession granted to Labour and Construction Societies will also apply to works relating to Semi Government, Local Government, Public Sector Corporation, Punjab State Electricity Board, Cana Lining Works, Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal, Punjab State Tubewell Corporation, Punjab State Police Housing Corporation, Bhakhra Beas Management Board (BBMB), PUNSUP, Punjab Agro, Food and Civil Supplies, Punjab Health Systems Corporation and Works relating to world Bank Aided Project etc. and work to these societies will be allotted on preferential basis.
It is, thus, submitted that respondent No. 3 entity does not fall within this clause being a body corporated and duly constituted under the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 8 has the expression "also". Thus, the name of the Corporation enumerated therein are only illusory in character and not exhaustive as in the end phrase used is "etc.".
We are unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that expression "also" has to be read in context to the circular being issued by the State Government. Thus, apart from the State of Punjab, it would apply to Semi Government, Local Government and such other Corporations as are listed in that clause. In fact while issuing circular pain has been taken to enlist different Corporations, but the name of respondent No. 3 does not figure in the same.
The other aspect pointed to us is that a copy of circular was endorsed to respondent No. 3. That, in our view, ipso facto cannot be made applicable to respondent no. 3.
To our query, learned counsel for State of Punjab concedes that in the counter-affidavit there is no mention of the fact as to whether the State Government even intended that this circular should apply to respondent No. 3. We are of the view that it is only for the State Government to consider as to whether it would like to include respondent no. 3 as one of the entity by amending Notification dated 7.11.2011. While doing so, it would of course have to keep in mind the objection sought to be raised by learned counsel for respondent no. 3 that State Government may not be able to issue Notification to an entity being one constituted under the Central Legislation.
The State Government may take a call on this issue within a maximum period of one month from today. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.