ABDUL RASHID Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 08.06.2017, Annexure P.2, passed by the respondent Corporation, vide which tender for lot strip No. PHLMAH- G 5948, PHL-MAH-G 5949 and PHL-MAH-G 5950 has been allotted to respondent No. 3 at the reserve price without calling public tender and giving due opportunity to other tenderers, causing huge loss to the State Exchequer. Direction has also been sought to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to re-auction the above said lots by giving due notice and opportunity to all interested tenderers. Further prayer has been made for restraining respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from allowing respondent No. 3 to cut the trees.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a partner of M/s Thind Enterprises, Malerkotla. The petitioner's firm is a small time timber, timber product and fire wood dealer. It takes small lots from Government or Government agencies for cutting the trees and in public auction. This firm is dully registered with Excise and Taxation Officer, Sangrur. When the trees are auctioned, the petitioner and similarly situated persons who deal in timber trade participate in such auctions and take tender for cutting the trees. The State of Punjab is widening various roads in the State and for that purpose, tenders are allotted to different companies and firms for different strips of roads. Respondent No. 3 who is also a construction company got allotted tender for construction of National Highway No. 344-A from Nawanshahr to Balachaur. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 gave an advertisement in Ajit Daily calling e-tender for emergency allotment of lots for cutting the trees. The e-tender was to be submitted on 06.06.2017 upto 11:00 AM and the bid was to be opened at 4:30 PM on the same date and as per the other conditions, for tender of value less than Rs. 5 lakhs, EMD of 5 % and for tenders for value of more than Rs. 5 lakhs, EMD of Rs. 25,000 or 2% of the value whichever is more had to be deposited by RTGS. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 in connivance with the official respondents, applied for e-tender for lots No. PHL-MAH-G 5948, PHL-MAH-G 5949 and PHL-MAH-G 5950 and deposited the requisite EMD with the tender. Three more persons i.e. Harminder Singh and Company, M.S. Trading Company and M/s Chaudhary Wood Company applied for different lots and deposited the earnest money of Rs. 25,000/- whereas the required earnest money was much more. The petitioner asserts that official respondent No. 2 in connivance with respondent No. 3 opened the bid of the above said three persons and held that respondent No. 3 was the highest bidder and allotted the work to the said respondent. At one stage, the official respondents realising that the tenders of these three applicants could not have been opened in view of the tender condition, granted time to three applicants to complete the EMD amount. The official respondents reached an understanding with these applicants that respondent No. 3 will allot them those lots for cutting trees, whereupon these persons withdrew their application for tendering. The official respondent allotted the tender to the sole tenderer respondent No. 3 at the reserve price fixed by the department. According to the petitioner, the value in all the strips mentioned in the order had been shown less than Rs. one crore which had been done just to deny the right of participation to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. Aggrieved by the action of the official respondents, the petitioner is before this Court through the instant writ petition.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.