NARMADA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 30-10-2013 by which the rates offered by respondent No. 3 for transportation of food-grains pursuant to the notice inviting tender dated 17-9-2013 have been approved by the Deputy General Manager (Transportation) of respondent No. 1-Corporation.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that respondent No. 1 invited tenders for transportation of food-grains for the year 2013-14 vide notice inviting tender (NIT for short), which was published in the local newspaper dated 7-9-2013. The last date for submission of the tenders was 27-9-2013 upto 3.00 p.m. The tenders were to be opened at 3.30 p.m. The petitioner as well respondent No. 3 submitted their tenders for LRT (Procurement) Sector Seoni, Distt. Seoni. Admittedly, the bid submitted by respondent No. 3 was the lowest whereas, the petitioner was the second lowest bidder. Clause 1.4a of the N.I.T., provides that the tenderer should have ten heavy vehicles either belonging to himself or the firm. Out of the aforesaid ten heavy vehicles, five vehicles should belong to the tenderer/his firm and five vehicles can be procured on contract basis. Clause 4.3.1 of the N.I.T. mandates that the agreement for procurement of the vehicle has to be self-attested.

(3.) After opening of the technical and financial bid on 27-9-2013, the petitioner submitted an objection on 30-9-2013 inter alia on the ground that the bid submitted by respondent No. 3 is liable to be rejected as the agreement submitted by respondent No. 3 were not signed by the witnesses. However, the General Manager (Transportation) of respondent No. 1-Corporation after obtaining legal opinion, came to the conclusion that it is not necessary to obtain the signature of the witnesses on an agreement. Thereafter, by an order dated 30-10-2013, the rates offered by respondent No. 3, who was the lowest bidder, were approved. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.