MORNING FLIGHT Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a private courier service Firm, has filed this writ application, inter alia, praying to quash the 'courier service contract' given to opposite party No.3 by opposite parties 1 and 2 i.e. the Steel Authority of India Limited, for the period 2001-2002.

(2.) It is averred that opposite parties 1 and 2, which is a public sector undertaking, issued a notice on 10/02/2001, inviting tenders for carrying mail and materials to and from Bolani Ore Mines to R.N.D., Calcutta and to any other consignee and addressee which may be intimated from time to time (Annexure-1). The period of contract was for one year. The instructions to the tenders annexed to the Tender Notice stipulated the terms and conditions and other parafernalias to be complied by the tender. A copy of the instructions to the tenderers is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. On the same day, the special conditions of the contract was also published and supplied to the intending tenderers. The petitioner, as well as many others, submitted their tenders after fulfilling all the parafernalias. The petitioner submitted his tender on 28/02/2001, vide Annexure-5. It is averred that the petitioner satisfied all the conditions stipulated in the tender papers and also duly complied the stipulations embodied in the Tender Notice as well as other documents referred to (supra). When the tender papers were opened, it was found that for the work stipulated at serial 1; the petitioner quoted Rs.8000/-, for serial 2 Rs.2000/- and for serial 3 Rs. 3000/-. At the other hand, opposite party No.3 quoted Rs.10,650/- for the work at serial 1, Rs.1,050/- and Rs.300/- for serials 2 and 3 respectively. the petitioner submits that if the pros and cons of all the serial Nos. are added, it would appear that both the parties quoted equal amounts and thus, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties 1 and 2 to call both the parties for negotiations. Instead of following the rules, it is alleged that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are proposing to enter into a contract with opposite party No.3. It is further averred that, though a final decision has already been taken, the contract has not yet been signed. The petitioner further alleges that the performance of opposite party No.3 was not found satisfactory in the year 1995-96 for which it was blacklisted, at the other hand, the performance of the petitioner-firm was always quite satisfactory and the decision of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is liable to be quashed.

(3.) After receiving the rule, a formal counter affidavit was filed by the opposite parties. At the outsent it was submitted that the 'lis' flows from a contractual obligation and as such cannot be effectually adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not the tenderer nor Shri Jyoti Mohan Mohanty is the proprietor of M/s Morning flight - petitioner. It is averred that the tender was submitted by one Jyoti Mohan Mohanty asserting that he is the Proprietor of M/s Morning flight and as such, the writ application filed by Shri Jyotimohan Mohanty is not maintainable. It is further alleged that from the documents submitted at Calcutta, it appears that the real proprietor of the firm M/s Morning Flight is one Shri Tapan Kumar Mukerjee, who has been granted Registered Certificate dated 19-3-1998 bearing Registration No. Courier/CA/1/356 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax Cell, Calcutta under S. 69 of the finance Act, 1994. the Municipal Corporation of Calcutta also issued licence in the afresaid address. Thus, the petitioner has no manner or legal right to represent M/s Morning Flight and file this writ application.