MASSA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the decision of 4th respondent- PUNGRAIN considering the petitioner's bid to be non-responsive and awarding the work in favour of respondent No.5. The respondents issued a notice inviting tenders pursuant to instructions to that effect from the Director, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs containing in letter dated 10.03.2016. The petitioner submitted a bid. The petitioner's bid has been rejected on the ground that he is ineligible in view of clause 24(iii) of the policy which admittedly is applicable to the tender. Clause 24 (iii) reads as under:-

(2.) Mr. Bakshi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, firstly, contended that the bid was submitted in the name of M/s Baba Tega Singh Transport Company and not in the name of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition.

(3.) The submission is not well founded. It overlooks the fact that the petitioner carries on the business in the firm name and style of Baba Tega Singh Transport Company as a sole proprietor thereof. It is irrelevant that a person carries on business in a firm name and style as a sole proprietor thereof. A sole proprietary firm is not a legal entity. There is no question, therefore, of the petitioner having no locus standi. The firm name is nothing but the name in which the petitioner himself carries on his business. The contention is, therefore, rejected.