JORAM MPCS LTD Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tender notice, which was published on 02-03-2012, by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri, Zero, lies at the root of controversy in this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the tender notice invited sealed tenders from the interested Registered Cooperative Societies of Lower Subansiri district, for appointment as PDS Wholesale Nominee-cumCarriage Contractor for PDS rice, in respect of Lower Subansiri District, for the year 2012-13. The terms and conditions of the appointment were given, in detail, along with the said tender notice. The relevant partition of the terms and conditions aforementioned are reproduced below:

(2.) On the opening date, i.e., 15-03-2012, the sealed tenders were opened, a comparative statement of various factors, governing the selection of the nominee from amongst the tenderers, was prepared. There were, altogether, six co-operative societies, which had participated. The relevant portion of the comparative statements of the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 5 (who is hereinafter referred to as the private respondent), being amongst the said six cooperative societies, is reproduced below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_759_TLGAU0_2012_1.html</FRM>

(3.) On the basis of the findings, reached by it, the Board, which had been constituted for making selection, recommended the name of the writ petition for awarding the contract making it, however, clear that the Board was recommending another participant, namely, M/S Radhpu MPCS Ltd, Radhpu, as second option in the event the offer of the present petitioner is turned down. The matter, then, reached the Parliamentary Secretary (Food and Civil Supplies), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and he, vide his note, dated 09-04-2012, addressed to the Minister concerned informed the latter that except the present petitioner, none other was fully eligible. The note, dated 09- 04-2012, aforementioned discloses to the effect that the present petitioner was found to be the fittest tenderer for allotment of the contract and, in this regard, the Parliamentary Secretary (Food and Civil Supplies), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, also observed that the tender document, furnished by the private respondent, was not complete inasmuch as the private respondent had not furnished the lease deed, executed between the private respondent and the owner of the trucks, except giving a declaration of the deeds of lease made before Judicial Magistrate.