C.W.P. No. 4152 of 2008 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4152 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.8.2008 Surinder Singh and others. ..Petitioners Vs. The Food Corporation of India and others. ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. K. K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. N.K. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Sunil Vashishta, Advocate for respondent No.4. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of award of tender of transportation in favour of respondent No.4 by respondent No.2. The petitioners are members of respondent No.4- The Janta Truck Operators Union, Lehra Gagga, who are aggrieved against the allotment of transport contract by respondent No.1- Food Corporation of India to respondent No.4 which in substance, is in favour of respondent No.3. For allotment of transport contract at Lehra Gagga Centre, District Sangrur, the tenders were called by respondent No.1. The technical bid was opened on 15.11.2007 in which respondent No. 4, namely, The Janta Truck Operators Union, Lehra Gagga was successful bidder and was awarded the contract, which is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the condition laid down in the tender form, the same could be submitted by a person or persons, firm or a company and such a person was required to disclose its constitution at the time of submission of tender and further C.W.P. No. 4152 of 2008 [ 2] nominate a person who was to deal with the contractee with regard to the work assigned. Referring to document (Annexure P.2), resolution passed by respondent No.4 on 14.11.2007, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a perusal of the document shows that in fact for all intents and purposes, the tender was being submitted by respondent No.3- Satnam Singh and respondent No.4 was being used as a front person. The resolution provided that the entire expenses for the tender were to be incurred by Satnam Singh and Truck Operators Union had nothing to do with this. It was to be in the ownership of Satnam Singh. Further referring to affidavit filed by Satnam Singh before the authorities, he submitted that even Satnam Singh stated in his affidavit that the tender was being submitted by him as sole proprietor of Janta Truck Operators Union, Lehra Gagga (respondent No.4). Respondent No.3 submitted his own property as security as against the property owned by respondent No.4, who is stated to be the contractor. In case, respondent No.4 was the genuine contractor, who had submitted the bid, the property owned by respondent No.4 should have been submitted as security. The submission is that in fact the tender was submitted by respondent No.3 and it was only the name of the Truck Operators Union, which was used for all intents and purposes. The applicant and the allottee of the transport contract was respondent No.3 who could not be awarded the contract. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the tender in fact has been allotted to respondent No.4-Truck Operators Union. By way of resolution (Annexure P.2), Truck Operators Union authorised respondent No.3- Satnam Singh for acting on its behalf. Truck Operators Union is an association of person and it had to act through some body and for that respondent No.3 had been authorised and in the process, no illegality has been committed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that the contract has been awarded to Truck Operators Union as respondent No.3 is working on its behalf and as such, the award of contract in its favour by the Food Corporation of India cannot be faulted with. C.W.P. No. 4152 of 2008 [ 3] We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The facts as regards the invitation for tender, submission of documents and award of contract in favour of respondent No.4 are not in dispute. The terms and conditions of the contract required that a contractor had to disclose its constitution at the time of submission of bid. The contractor was not entitled to sublet the contract in favour of any other person without the prior permission of the Food Corporation of India. The nature of business being carried out by the tenderer or the partners of the tenderer from a particular Head Office or branches were required to be furnished in the bid form. Further, the particulars regarding previous work undertaken by the tenderer as Labour and Transport Contractor were also required to be furnished. In the bid document submitted by respondent No.4, as against the details regarding property and other particulars of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 submitted his own particulars and gave the particulars of the property owned by him as security. He further submitted an affidavit stating himself to be the owner of sole proprietor of Janta Truck Operators Union, Lehra Gagga and gave his own address for correspondence. He submitted details of his own current account maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Sangrur instead of respondent No.4. As far as experience is concerned, the information as is evident from the record, respondent No.4 furnished its own experience for working as a Transport Contractor, the benefit of which was sought to be availed of by respondent No.3. In addition to this, the petitioners have also placed on record affidavits of Moti Ram and Maghi Ram who are members of respondent No.4 stating therein that no meeting as such of the Truck Operators Union was held on 14.11.2007 for resolution in favour of respondent No.3 conferring on him the rights to have transport contract from respondent No.1 in his name. Moti Ram even stated that he never signed the said resolution. From the facts noticed above, it is evident that if the veil is lifted, it is crystal clear that in fact and substance, the tenderer was Satnam Singh, who used the name of respondent No.4- Truck Operators Union to get the transport contract. The uncontroverted material placed on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that resolution (Annexure P.2) authorised C.W.P. No. 4152 of 2008 [ 4] respondent No.3- Satnam Singh for getting the transport contract in his name as owner thereof and the Truck Operators Union had nothing to do with the same. In such a situation, the stand of the respondents that in fact the transport contract had been allotted to respondent No.4 cannot be accepted as such. For the reasons mentioned above, we find merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and accordingly accept the same and set aside the contract of transport awarded by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.4. It is further directed that fresh exercise of award of transport contract shall be carried out as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today and least the work of respondent No.1 suffers, respondent No.4 shall be permitted to carry on the work till then. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Hemant Gupta) Judge 14.8.2008 mk