LADAKH ROAD LINES Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner, M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, is seeking to quash the decision taken by Chairman, J&K State Road Transport Corporation, respondent no.2 herein, whereby he directed re-tendering of the contract for supply of trucks to J&K State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') in terms of the communication made by respondent no.3 to respondent no.1 bearing No.JKSRTC/GML/CHT/499 dated 16.07.2012, with a direction to the respondents to allot the contract for supply of trucks to the petitioner-firm for the contract period, i.e., up to 31st March 2014, on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that respondent no.4 issued a tender notice bearing No.JKSRTC/GML/CHT-2012-14/472 dated 08.06.2012, whereby tender offers were invited from reputed and registered Transport Groups/Firms/Companies/Associations dealing in transportation of goods, for supply of trucks to JKSRTC (for catering left over demand of the JKSRTC) from time to time for the contract period up to 31.03.2014. The requisite tender documents were to be submitted on or before 30.06.2012 up to 11 AM in two separate sealed envelopes subscribed as Technical Bid and Financial Bid. Petitioner-firm obtained the tender documents and submitted the same. Technical Bids were opened and petitioner-firm and one Vikas Transport Company were found to be eligible, whereas M/s M. R. Motor Transport Corporation and M/s New JK Roadways failed to make the grade; so their Technical Bids were rejected. Accordingly, petitioner-firm and one Vikas Transport Company qualified for opening of the Financial Bid. Financial Bids were opened in presence of respondents 3 & 5. Petitioner-firm was found to be the highest bidder and, therefore, was called for negotiation by respondent no.5. After negotiation, the negotiated commission was agreed upon by the parties as is given in annexure "D". Thereafter, respondent no.5 submitted a report to respondent no.3, Managing Director of the Corporation, with the observation that there is increase of 52-100% rate of commission for different stations. Respondent no.3, in turn, sought report from the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, who, too, confirmed the recommendations of respondent no.5. Accordingly, respondent no. 3 made recommendations to respondent no. 2, Chairman of the Corporation, for approval of allotment of the contract in favour of petitioner-firm. However, respondent no.2, instead of according approval to the contract, issued communication dated 16.07.2012 directing re-tendering of the contract. The said communication is impugned in the writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner has questioned the decision of re-tendering of the contract on the grounds taken in paragraphs 7(a) to 7(g) of the writ petition.