MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION NEW DELHI Vs. HAMALI LABOUR CONTRACT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ appeals are directed against the same order of the learned single Judge dated 24-1 -2002 in WP No.20060 of 2001. WANo.180 of 2002 is filed by the Warehousing Corporation and its authorities, whereas WA No.193 of 2002 is filed by the Hamali Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Medak. 4th respondent in the writ petition. The above writ petition was filed by the Hamali Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Kuchampally, the first respondent in the writ appeals, praying for the following relief.

(2.) The background facts leading to the filing of the case be stated briefly as under: A tender notification dated 3-3-2001 was issued on 3-3-2001 inviting sealed tenders for appointment of Contractors for handling and transport of stocks of food grains, fertilizers and other notified commodities of various depositors at Warehouse, Medak and other places. The said tender notification was also published in daily newspapers both in English and Telugu. In pursuance of the said notification, six Hamali Labour Contract Co-operative Societies and one individual Contractor had submitted their tenders for handling and transport work at Medak, the details of which are furnished below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_75_ALD6_2002Html1.htm</FRM> The tenders were opened on 23-1-2001 by the Tender Committee in the presence of the tenderers or their representatives. The lowest tender at 79% below Schedule of Rates was submitted by one Hamali Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Shalipet. The second lowest tender was submitted by the petitioner - Society at 27% below Schedule of Rates. The third lowest tender was submitted by Hamali Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Ausulpally at 25% below Schedule of Rates and fourth lowest tender at Schedule of Rates was submitted by Sri Venkateswara Hamali Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Chennaipalli. The 4th respondent - Society, who is the appellant in WA No.193 of 2002, had submitted the tender at 1% above Schedule of Rates. The other two tenderers had quoted rates at 9% and 50% above Schedule of Rates. The Tender Committee, for evaluating the tenderers, deputed the Senior Assistant Manager (Commercial) at Regional Office of the Corporation at Hyderabad to make joint assessment along with Warehouse Manager, Medak. Both the officers made discrete enquiries as to the financial capacities, experience and area of operation and other factors relating to the tenderers and submitted a report on 28-3-2001. In the report submitted by those two officers, dealing with the petitioner - Society, it is stated that: M/s. Hamali Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Kulchanpalli, Medak is none else but our regular H&T Contractor at CW, Medak for a period of 30 months from 18-3-1998. As per the information gathered, the said firm had satisfactorily carried out the work Regarding financial status, the Society is not having any amount/fixed assets, except a meagre amount of Rs.2,074/- in State of Hyderabad in Medak Account No.8060 as on 9-10-2000 and since then the account is inoperative. It is informed by the President that the security deposit pertaining to his contract period of March, 1999 is still with Regional Office" Further, in the same report, dealing with the 4th respondent - Society, it is stated that: " ... As per the information furnished by the President, the said Society worked with CWC as a regular H&T Contractor for the period from 1980 to December, 1995. The Society President has submitted a bank account bearing No.2955 dated 26-5-1986 of SBH, Medak, where an amount of Rs.623-57 was in their credit as on 4-2-1997 and thereafter the account is inoperative. Except, this, no other assets are in their credit. Discrete enquiry reveals that the Society is not financially sound at present and also with its meagre strength of hamalies of 13 (thirteen) members, they will not be able to cope up with the heavy transactions during heavy procurement season unless they procure private labour. Hence, both the officers are of the opinion that the said Society is riot competent to carry out the work smoothly". Thereafterwards the Tender Committee, which consisted of four officers, met on 4-4-2001 and considered the tenders. After considering the tenders and the report submitted by the aforementioned two officers dated 28-3-2001, the Tender Committee had accepted the tender submitted by the 4th respondent - Society as against the four lowest tenderers including the petitioner - Society. In terms of the recommendation of the Tender Committee, ultimately the contract was awarded in favour of the 4th respondent and in that regard a communication dated 2-6-2001 was sent to the 4th respondent. Subsequently on 13-7-2001 an agreement was entered into between the parties and it is claimed by the 4th respondent that he started work with effect from 26-8-2001.

(3.) When the matter stood thus, the writ petition was filed on 25-9-2001 contending that the action of the Corporation in refusing to award contract to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that the 4th respondent is not entitled to the award of contract. Opposing the writ petition, a detailed counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents 1 to 3. The 4th respondent, though served with notice, remained un-represented and did not contest the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Warehousing Corporation and its authorities, it is contended that the contract was not awarded to the petitioner - Society and other four lowest tenderers inter alia on the ground that the area of operation of these Societies do not extend to Medak town, the lack of financial capacities and the rates offered by them are unworkable.