SHIVALIK FOODS, CHANDIGARH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have Mr. D.C. Raina, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. CGSC, for respondents -1 to 3, and Mr. K.S. Johal, learned counsel for respondent -4, it extenso.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the tender document issued in favour of respondent -4 for the supply of fowl frozen for Ladakh Sector for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2006, on the ground that respondent -4, who has also tendered for the job, should not be allotted the contract being ineligible, as he does not possess freezing facilities at Chandigarh, owned by him or can be hired, nor Memorandum of Understanding produced at the time of collection of tenders; Whereas the tender submitted by the petitioner is complete in all respects and the same was entertained by the respondents.

(3.) RESPONDENTS -1 to 3 have filed their reply. Respondent -4 has also filed his reply separately. Paras 6 and 7 of the reply filed by respondents -1 to 3 are extracted as under: "6. That is reply to the averments of para No. 2 of the petition it is respectfully submitted that Respondent No. 4 has submitted Memorandum of Understanding for hiring of freezing facilities which was considered adequate at the tendering stage. 7. That in reply to the averments of para No. 3 it is respectfully submitted that the contract has not yet been finalized. Respondent No. 4 vide his letter no nil dated 14 Feb. 2003 has stated that he will submit lease deed within 15 days of contract being sanctioned in his favour as stamp duty is to be paid and till the contract is sanctioned in his favour it is not feasible to incur the expenditure on stamp duty and also the total value of the contract was not known."