LAWS(GAU)-2017-12-35

HAJI ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On December 12, 2017
Haji Enterprises Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review towards setting aside the contract awarded in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in respect of the work in question.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, which deals in the business of carriage contract under the FCI, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The respondent No. 1 is the Union of India and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the private respondents.

(3.) The fact, in a narrow compass, is that on 09.11.2015, the FCI floated a Notice Inviting Tender from the eligible bidders for appointment as contractors on regular basis for two years' period. Being eligible, the petitioner submitted two different bids, one is for an estimated work of Rs. 10,16,43,030/- for transportation of foodgrains/allied materials etc. "Ex-Rly. siding Harmutty/FSD Banderdewa to FCI FSD Pasighat, AP via weighbridge" and the other bid for an estimated work of Rs. 6,20,17,575/- for transportation of Foodgrains/allied materials etc. "Ex-Rly. siding Harmutty/FSD Banderdewa to FCI FSD Daporijo, AP via weighbridge". The petitioner became the successful tenderer. Accordingly, it was awarded the contract for allotment of the said works. Thereafter, Bank Guarantees were executed vide BG No. 2974IGPER000216, dated 09.02.2016, valid upto 08.08.2018 for the Pasighat work and BG No.2974IGPER000116, dated 9.2.2016, valid upto 8.8.18 for the Daporijo work. The petitioner also furnished security deposits for a sum of Rs. 50,82,155/- for Pasighat work and Rs. 31,00,880/- for the Daporijo work. The petitioner was, thus, appointed by the Regional Office of FCI, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, for the works aforementioned, vide communication No. FCI/Cont./RTC/HMY-BND-PSG/APR/15, dated 02.03.2016 for Pasighat works and Communication No. FCI/Cont./RTC/HMY-BND-DPJ/APR/15, dated 02.03.2016, for Daporijo works. It is contended by the petitioner that huge investments for the purpose of the contract works has been made by him.