SUPRA ENTERPRISES Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is for quashing the order dated 25-7-2005 (Annexure P-12) issued by respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner-firm has been blacklisted w.e.f. 13-7-2005.

(2.) As per the averments contained in the petition, the petitioner is engaged in the business of supply and delivery of C.I. Spun Pipes and other allied material and claims to have completed a contract of the value of Rs. 67,71,545/- offered by the respondents for supply of 300 NB CI Pipe Barrels in 5.3. Meter length at the rate of Rs. 2,323/- per meter as reflected in the work order dated 28-2-2002 Annexure P-1. The respondents floated another tender for supply of C.I. Spun Pipes and received only petitioner's tender wherein the petitioner had quoted the rate of the Pipe Barrels at Rs. 7662.95 per meter. Respondent No. 2 had received sole offer of the petitioner, therefore, decided to re-tender the same. During the second time as well, the petitioner was the solitary tenderer wherein he had quoted the rate of Rs. 7662.95 per meter. Respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to supply the break-up of basic price indicating expenses towards raw material etc. in support of the rate quoted by it. The petitioner in response to this query, submitted a detailed break-up, vide letter dated 20-4-2004 (Annexure P-5) of the cost of the material along with reasons for quoting higher rate than the bids submitted in the years 2000 and 2002, the main reason submitted was that the rate of pig iron had registered an unprecedented hike and an upward trend had also been witnessed in the rates of ferro-silicon, hard coke, electricity etc. which also contributed to the quoting of higher rates. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, other correspondence was exchanged between the parties, the copies of which are at Annexures P-6 to P-11 whereby the respondents repeatedly asked the petitioner to give justification for the rates quoted by it in the bid and in turn, the petitioner went on to submit its justification for quoting the higher rates. Even after fresh negotiations in the meeting held on 6-7-2004, the petitioner agreed to reduce the rate of the material in question to Rs. 6,464.42 per meter and sent a communication in this regard to the respondents vide Annexure P-9. Not only this, the petitioner again reduced the rate of the material to Rs. 3.640/- per meter and requested the respondents vide letter dated 7-9-2004 (Annexure P-11) for early acceptance of the revised rate. But, it is further averred, the respondents instead of finalizing the tender issued a notice to the petitioner dated 21-1-2005 calling upon it to explain as to why the petitioner-firm had tried to over-charge by more than double the rate and why action be not taken against it for quoting exorbitant rates in the bid. The petitioner claims to have responded to the respondents and clarified that the reduced rate was being quoted as there was reduction in the rates of pig iron etc. But when the petitioner was sanguine of having a positive response from the respondents, astonishingly a letter dated 25-7-2005 (Annexure P-12) was received by it whereby the petitioner-firm was black-listed with effect from 13-7-2005.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents, the averments contained in the petition were controverted. All that what has been said therein is that the explanation furnished by the petitioner for quoting higher rate was not satisfactory and convincing. It was further submitted that since the rates quoted by the petitioner in its letter dated 6-7-2004 (Annexure P-9) were not acceptable, a direct enquiry was made from the principal supplier which quoted very low rates. It is further stated that the petitioner came to know about all this and consequently conveyed the reduced rates vide Annexure P-ll which was nothing but a clever move and reflected on the conduct of the petitioner-firm. The petitioner also filed replication controverting the stand of the respondents.