SUBHASH AND COMPANY Vs. KRIBHCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the action of the 1st respondent, forwarding fresh tender forms for the work of Handling and Transportation work (referred as H & T work) of fertilizer at rail head Moradabad; Petitioner was asked to submit fresh tender forms duly filled on or before 10th February, 1994 (as per letter Annexure D). Similar is the letter dated 7.2.1994 (Annexure E), which is also sought to be set aside. Petitioner, further seeks a Mandamus to the respondents recting them to fulfil their part of the contract, (on the basis that there has already been a concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondents under which the contract to perform the work had been awarded to the petitioner); other reliefs sought in this writ petition are incidental to these reliefs.

(2.) According to the petitioner, it is a proprietorship concern and 1st respondent is a Multi Unit Cooperative Society incorporated under the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. The second respondent,n officer of the 1st respondent issued a notice inviting tenders for appointment of H & T works in U.P., on 12th October, 1993. According to the petitioner, his tender was accepted; inspite of such acceptance, fresh tenders were invited under the impugned letters.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the intending bidders were asked to apply for tender forms upto 5 p.m. of 1.11.1993 alongwith certain documents and tender was to be accepted till 11 a.m. of 11.2.1993 and to be opened at 12 Noon on the same day in the presence of the tenderers who wish to be present. Petitioner relies on the advertisement in Hindustan Times dated 12.10.1993 (Annexure 'A'). The dates were, subsequently extended and the last date for submitting the tender documents was extended to 16.11.1993, time for opening the tender was extended to 287 17.11.1993. Petitioner submits that he submitted his tender on 16.11.1993, and complied with all the requirements such as payment of earnest money. Petitioner states that tenders were opened on 17.11.1993 by the 2nd respondent in the presence of the tenderers and the tender submitted by the petitioner was found to be most suitable. As per a letter dated 20.12.1993, the petitioner was informed that he was appointed as a contractor for H & T work, and the 3rd respondent enclosed the contract document for the execution of the same by the petitioner and to forward the same thereafter to the 2nd respondent within a week. Petitioner, asserts that he forwarded the contract documents duly executed by him with a Demand Draft of Rs.25,000.00 within the stipulated time. Petitioner also asserts that he made all the requisite preparations to carry on the work, including employing skilled workmen. The contract, it is stated, was to be effective from 1.12.1993. However, instead of actually placing orders with the petitioner, he received the impugned letters, inviting fresh tenders.