VAISHNO FLOUR MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India through its Executive Officer. MG ASC Northern Command, issued a tender notice dated 15-4-2005 for inviting tenders from flour mills registered with MG ASG HQ Northern Command for lifting of what from FCI Depots, grinding into atta, purchase of bran, refraction and used what bags, transportation of atta and bran by road transport to nominated Military Stations in J and K., Pathankot and Kangra Valley from 1 Aug 05 (or from the date of sanction) to 31-7-2006. Clause6 of the tender notice envisages that successful tenderer will be required to follow terms and conditions laid down in tender form and MOU. The tenders were for the contracts relating to 14 Corps, 16 Corps, 15 Corps and K. V. Depots. In response for three contracts for 16 Corps, 15 Corps and K. V. Depots five registered four mills including that of the petitioner submitted their tenders and thereby quoted their rates. The tenders were opened on 5-5-2005; comparative statement of the rates quoted by them was prepared by the respondents, which forms part of the reply as annexures 3, 4 and 5 to reply affidavit. Admittedly the bid of the petitioner was found to be lowest (LI) for 16 corps the bid of respondent No. 6 was found to be second lowest (L 2) and that of Kash-Ind. was found 3rd lowest (L 3). For 15 Corps the rates quoted by respondent No. 6 were found to be lowest (LI) while that of the petitioner were found to be 2nd lowest (L2) and that of Kash-lnd. were found 3rd lowest (L3). For the third contract for KV Depots the bid of the petitioner was lowest (L 1) while from Kash-Ind was 2nd lowest (L 2) and respondent No. 6 was 3rd lowest (L3).

(2.) The respondents have allowed the contract for 16 Corps and 15 Corps to respondent No. 6 whereas third contract for KV Depot has been allotted in favour of firm Kash-Ind. The bid of the petitioner for all three contracts has been rejected. The petitioner through this petition and supplementary affidavit has questioned the allotment of three contracts but for the reason that the firm Kash-Ind to whom third contract for KV Depots has been allotted has not been impleaded as respondent in this petition, as such learned counsel for the petitioner has 'foregone his challenge and restricted it only to the two contracts he. 15 and 16 Corps allotted in favour of respondent No. 6.

(3.) Mr. Goni, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rates quoted by the petitioner for the contract for 16 Corps were lowest yet his tender has been rejected and in spite of the fact that the rates quoted by respondent No. 6 were admittedly more than the rates quoted by the petitioner, contract has been allotted in his favour. Mr. Goni further contends that even allotment of the contract of 15 Corps in favour of respondent No. 6 is bad because of the fact that his rates which have been found to be lowest in comparison to the rates quoted by him, should not have been accepted being fraudulent and unreasonable. In order to explain his point Mr. Goni pointed out that for transportation of atta from the mill to Srinagar respondent No. 6 has quoted Rs. 829/- against the petitioner's rate of Rs. 850/-. For the destination of Gulmarg the rate quoted by respondent No. 6 is Rs. 475/- whereas the rate quoted by the petitioner is Rs. 956/- and similarly for Tangdar respondent No. 6 quoted Rs. 751/- as against Rs. 970/- quoted by the petitioner. Mr. Goni submits that it is inconceivable as to how rate of Rs. 475/- and 751/- for the destination of Gulmarg and Tangdar can be reasonable when the rate quoted and accepted for Srinagar is Rs. 829/- as the destination of Gulmarg and Tangdar are indisputedly at more distance than Srinagar. How can the rates quoted by respondent No. 6 for Gulmarg and Tangdar can be treated a reasonable. He argues that the rates quoted by the petitioner for both the contracts being lowest and reasonable deserved to be accepted by the respondents and contracts should have been allotted to the petitioner. But in order to confer undue benefit upon respondent No. 6 the rates quoted by him have been arbitrarily found to be reasonable , arbitrary and unreasonable action of the respondents of allotting the contracts in favour of respondent No. 6 cannot be legally sustained. He submits that the allotment of respondent No. 6 for the contracts of 15 and 16 Corps should be quoted and respondents be directed to allot the contracts in favour of the petitioner.