SHRIRAM CREATIONS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of the order dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P/2) issued by Respondent No.4.

(2.) The relevant facts for disposal of this writ petition are that, Petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in trading of toys, school kits, etc. and having its workplace at Raipur. Respondent No.4 issued a tender notification on 31.08.2018 calling interested tenderer/supplier/seller for supply of "pre-school kits " to 1748 Aganbadi/Mini-Aganbadi Centers of District Mahasamund. The last date for purchase of tender document was fixed as 29.09.2018 and to be submitted by 01.10.2018. The date and time for opening of bids was fixed as 01.10.2018 at 4.00 pm. The Petitioner has been identified to be eligible for award of work and vide order dated 07.03.2019 supply order was issued in his favour for supply of pre-school kit in 1748 numbers. The order of supply was received by the Petitioner on his mobile through Whats App. He immediately made written objection to Collector on 19.03.2019 primarily for extending time to 60 days as mentioned in tender document for supply instead of 10 days and to delete certain conditions mentioned in supply order, which are neither part of original terms and conditions mentioned in tender document nor part of Store Purchase Rules. When his objection was decided against him, he filed writ petition with following prayers :

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that terms and conditions of the tender document have been altered; Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002 ('Rules of 2002' for short) have not been followed. Imposition of 100% penalty, recovery as per market rate was not part of tender condition in the tender document but it is mentioned in order dated 07.03.2019, Petitioner has been given only 10 days time for storing the goods in godown by tenderer instead of 15 days and for supply of goods to respective centers time frame of 60 days. He further submitted that in the Rules of 2002, in para 4.13, it is provided that the tenderer who is identified for supply of goods has to enter into an agreement with the Department and it also provides for penalty clause in violation of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement. No such agreement was signed between the parties. But the Respondents in a very arbitrary manner mentioned new stringent terms and conditions while issuing the supply order in his favour, which is detrimental and prejudicial to interest of the Petitioner. He also submitted that mentioning of such a new harsh clause in supply order issued in his favour is arbitrary exercise of power that too, when such condition does not form part of tender conditions mentioned in tender document. He submits that the Respondents could have amended the terms and conditions in advance by issuing corrigendum notification.