ATLAS TRANSPORT CO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-partnership firm has stated that it is carrying on the business of transport contractors and amongst others it operates in the field of government goods transport contracts where it has been working since 1992. Even in the year 2004 to 2006 it was awarded certain contracts which were successfully completed. These contracts mainly relate to transportation of food grains under the Public Distribution System. For awarding these contracts, the Government invites tenders and the successful lowest bidder is given the contract. Tenders for the period 2003-2006 were invited by the Government and the petitioner claimed that he was found to be the lowest bidder of transporting food grains in public Distribution Scheme for Akola District. However, the said contract was not awarded to the petitioner and notice was issued to him for black-listing. The petitioner then took recourse to process of law and even had to file a contempt petition where ultimately, he was awarded the contract and he successfully completed the said work. In various Government departments, extensions were being granted to the contract period in an arbitrary manner without inviting tenders and the petitioner challenged the government Resolutions and actions which were set aside and due tenders were ordered to be invited. Respondent No. 3 is also a competitor in the same field. The petitioner earlier has filed the writ petition in the Nagpur Bench of this court as well praying for quashing of the order passed by the Minister dated 12th March, 2004. On 8th May, 2006, the State of Maharashtra issued a Government resolution, by virtue of which extension of transport contracts for next three years was given without calling for tenders with reference to 29 districts in the State of maharashtra for transportation of food grains. This resolution was challenged by the petitioner as well as various other affected contractors in writ petition No. 4413 of 2006 and other companion writ petitions. All of these were disposed of by the order of the court dated 28th july, 2006. These were primarily disposed of on the basis of the statement of the counsel for the State that they were initiating fresh process in 28 districts and new tenders were invited for the period 2006-2009. Fresh tenders were invited on 14th August, 2006 for the four districts. The petitioner had submitted tenders in 4 districts and his bid was lowest in Buldhana, jalgaon and Vasim districts and was second lowest bidder in Akola district. The Additional collector, Buldhana is stated to have opened the tender and other bidders could not qualify for want of solvency and bank guarantee except for the petitioner whose bids were found complete in all respects. Despite these tenders, arbitrary extensions were given in district buldhana. In 13 districts, the bids given were exorbitant i. e. 200 to 400 percent above the scheduled rate. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed being writ petition No. 4911 of 2006 in which interim order was granted. Still in another writ petition, the technical requirements with regard to solvency certificate and bank guarantee with the bid has been challenged and effect of the same was stayed until further orders by order of the court dated 7. 11. 2006. Certain objections were raised with regard to the bid of the petitioner which was looked into by the additional Collector, Buldhana and finally on 16. 12. 2006, Additional Collector, Buldhana did not accept any objection and declared the petitioner as successful bidder. The petitioner even filed an application for intervention in earlier writ petition No. 4911 of 2006 to show that he was the lowest bidder in relation to districts Buldhana and Jalgaon and that the contract should be awarded to him. It is averred in the petition that vide message dated 14. 11. 2006, Government had communicated to various districts as follows : fax MESSAGE to, the Additional Collector, Raigarh, Pune, satara, Nashik, Jalgaon, Dhule, Nandurbad, ahmednagar, Nanded, Jalna, Beed, Latur, osmanabad, Amravati, Yavatmal and Wardha. No : Contract 1006/1926/pra Kra 613/civil Supply 16a, Mantralaya Extension, Mumbai 400032. Date : 14th November, 2006. Subject : Regarding the appointment of under the Public Distribution System for the year 2006-2009. For ascertaining the finalization of foodgrains transportation contract in your district, the process of the same having been started since 17. 10. 2006, the tenders have been opened on 08. 11. 2006/13. 11. 2006. 2]. M/s. Shri. Govindkrupa Goods carrier has filed Writ Petition No. 5414/ 2006, challenging the Government resolution dated 05. 08. 2006 in respect of condition nos. 16,17,18 in the same, before the High Court, Bench at Nagpur. In this writ Petition, The H'ble High Court vide its Order dated 07. 11. 2006-by interim Order-has granted stay to condition no. 16 (Revenue solvency Certificate and Bank Guarantee)until further order. Following the interim order of The H'ble High Court, it is necessary to complete the tender proceedings and to give relaxation to condition no. 16 to all the bidders. Therefore, if those tenderers in your district have been only disqualified due to non fulfilment of condition no. 16 (Revenue Solvency certificate and Bank Guarantee), then all such Tenders be declared as qualified in presence of all the tenderers, and their rate envelopes should be opened, and ultimately out of them the tender of minimumrate should be held as valid. And the report of this execution of action must be produced immediately to the government. Sd/- (G. J. Taharabadkar)Under Secretary, dept. of food, civil supplies and consumer protection copy to All Deputy Commissioner (Supply ).

(2.) The order of the Collector declaring the Petitioner as successful bidder for jalgaon District was challenged by M/s. Raj transport, Latur, the second lowest bidder, in writ Petition No. 44 of 2007. However, the said order was not interfered by the Court by the order dated 30th March, 2007 which was challenged before the Supreme Court and the same is still pending. The enquiries were made about the solvency certificate submitted by the petitioner even in Buldhana District. The stay granted by the High Court in Writ Petition no. 4911 of 2006 was vacated by the order dated 19th December, 2006. Though the stay was vacated, the corrective steps in furtherance thereto were not taken. Though the Petitioner was not a party to the orders passed by the Court dated 4th April, 2007, he challenged the same before the Supreme Court and also took up the plea in furtherance to the order of the High Court that the Government had not framed any policy and even the transition arrangements were not being implemented in its true letter and spirit. This in fact resulted in awarding of contract to the Petitioner. The Petitioner claimed to have invested huge sums of money after having been found the lowest bidder in these Districts. The petitioner refers to various other litigations which were pending before different Benches of the Bombay High Court and were either instituted by Respondent No. 3 or were between different transporters questioning various awards of transportation contracts.

(3.) Vide order dated 16th June, 2007 the Court granted limited stay. However, liberties were given to the State to carry on with the enquiry. The order reads as under :-