M/S TDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to allocate the work of the "Miscellaneous Services" tender 2016, Annexure P.1 and execute 'the Contract Agreement' with the petitioner, it being the L-1. Further prayer has been made for quashing the impugned proceedings dated 07.06.2017, Annexure P.15 whereby respondent No.1 has ordered registration of FIR against the petitioner and barred the allotment of pending new tenders to it, on the ground of filing of fake fidelity bonds. A direction has also been sought for quashing the letter dated 04.09.2017, Annexure P.16, vide which respondent No.1 has offered the tender work to be allotted to respondent No.2 being L.2 and further proceedings dated 07.09.2017, Annexure P.17, whereby respondent No.2 has accepted the offer of respondent No.1. Prayer has also been made for restraining respondent No.1 from executing the 'Contract Agreement' with respondent No. 2.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mohali. It has been serving the esteemed organization of PGI, Chandigarh for the last more than 7 years with full dedication and sincerity. Respondent No.1 i.e. PGI Chandigarh floated a tender for outsourcing of 'Miscellaneous Services' for a period of two years vide Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) 2016. The petitioner alongwith other contractors participated in the said tender. The petitioner had already been allotted the tender for outsourcing in the year 2013. Since then, it had been providing the services to the PGI, Chandigarh to its satisfaction. Respondent No.1 had been giving extensions of the previous tender to the petitioner till date. The present extension period is expiring on 31.10.2017. Since the petitioner fulfilled all the eligibility criteria of the tender conditions, the price and technical bid were duly submitted by the petitioner alongwith the earnest money deposit before the last date. As per the NIT, there was a requirement of 441 workmen/employees to be deployed in different departments of PGI, Chandigarh for miscellaneous services such as store keepers, drivers, receptionist, Data Entry Operator etc. After the petitioner was declared successful in the technical bids, the price bids of all the eligible parties/bidders were opened by respondent No.1 by one of its 'Price Bid Evaluation Committee'. The rate/bid of the petitioner was found to be lowest i.e. respondent No.1 was to pay 1.43 per cent of the rates payable to the workers as the service charges to the petitioner and it was recommended by the Committee that the work of 'Miscellaneous Services' may be allotted to the petitioner firm being L-1. Respondent No.2 which quoted the rate of 1.63 per cent was declared as L.2. There were only two parties whose price bids were opened and rest were declared non eligible. Subsequently, the petitioner gave several reminders that since it had been declared as L-1 in the tender, the work may be allotted to it at the earliest. There was no communication from respondent No.1 in this regard. However, in the meantime, the petitioner came to know that respondent No.1 was offering the said tender to L-2 i.e. respondent No.2. The petitioner sought information through RTI regarding offering of the tender to L-2 and whether the same had been accepted by it. It also submitted representation dated 21.09.2017 before respondent No.1 to allot the tender to it and not to offer the same to L-2 as the petitioner was ready and willing to undertake the tender work. Vide letter 03.10.2017, Annexure P.5, the petitioner came to know through RTI that respondent No.1 had offered this tender to L-2 i.e. respondent No.2 and the same had been accepted by respondent No.2. The reasoning given in this letter was that the L-1 firm had submitted fake fidelity bonds. The petitioner asserts that it had been awarded another contract/tender relating to outsourcing of manpower for medical record technician by respondent No.1 in October 2016. In this running tender, the junior level officer/worker of the petitioner company submitted fake fidelity bonds dated 9.12.2016 and 17.1.2017. When this fact came to the knowledge of higher officials of the petitioner company, they immediately moved letter dated 28.1.2017 for withdrawal of the previous two fake fidelity bonds and submitted fresh single fidelity bond for Rs. 61,76,484/-. Respondent No.1 accepted the same and cancelled the previous fidelity bonds and sent the fresh bond for its verification. Vide letter dated 10.3.2017, it was averred that since the petitioner was to submit the fidelity bond within one month from the start of the contract i.e. by 20.11.2016 and it had not submitted the same within the stipulated time, a show cause notice dated 17.4.2017 was issued which was replied back by the petitioner. When the matter came up before the high power committee, it recommended that since the petitioner admitted its mistake, it was liable to be pardoned. Another committee constituted by the respondents recommended FIR against the petitioner for criminal offence of cheating and fraud for submitting fake fidelity bonds. According to the petitioner, since respondent No.1 has filed its complaint before the local police station on 15.6.2017, no FIR has been registered against it. Respondent No.1 has offered the present tender to L-2 vide impugned order dated 04.09.2017. Hence the instant petition by the petitioner.

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