IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4783 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:17.3.2010 M/s Parma Nand ----- Petitioner Vs. Food Corporation of India and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 10.3.2010, Annexure P.21, rejecting complaint of the petitioner against award of work of transportation to the private respondent. 2. Case of petitioner is that it gave its bid in pursuance of tender notice dated 16.11.2009. However, the work was allotted to the private respondent even though the said respondent was not eligible for want of requisite experience. The petitioner filed CWP No.3320 of 2010 (M/s Parma Nand v. Food Corporation of India and others), which was disposed of vide order dated 24.2.2010 with a direction to take decision on the complaint of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, order Annexure P.21 has been passed. In his complaint, the petitioner raised two objections: CWP No.4783 of 2010(O&M) i) Not attaching of draft of earnest money with the technical bid; ii) Lack of requisite experience. It was held in the impugned order that the draft was found in order and the private respondent had the requisite qualification. Relevant observations on the issue of experience are:- “In this case Transport Contractor, Raikot through Power of Attorney, has authorized Shri Jagjit Singh to carry out work, dealing with all kinds of work with FCI and as such Shri Jagjit Singh is executor, administrator and permitted assignee of TC Raikot and comes within the definition of contractor hence experience of work at TC Raikot has been taken into consideration. Clause IV(a) at page 9 of Model Tender Form also state that ‘contractor shall also nominate a person in whose hands the active management of work relating to contract would lie and the person so nominated shall be deemed to have power of attorney from the contractor in respect of contract and whose act shall be binding on the contractor.’ As per Clause XXI(3) of Model Tender Form (page 17) the contractor shall apprise the GM, the officer authorized to act on his behalf the name of one or more responsible representative authorized to act on their behalf in day to day working of the contract. Hence the executor and permitted assignee falls within the definition of contractor. The contractor can nominate/authorise one or more responsible 2 CWP No.4783 of 2010(O&M) representatives to act on the basis of power of attorney.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that work done as power of attorney could not have been taken into account and the definition of ‘contractor’ in the Model Tender Form was not relevant to the issue as the said definition was only for the purpose of holding the contractor responsible for the work done by his agent. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. It has been found as a fact that the private respondent had the requisite experience in his capacity as attorney. Interpretation by the respondent-Corporation that requirement in the tender condition of having three years experience in transportation in a contract of value of not less than 50% of the estimated value of the contract did not exclude experience as attorney of the contractor cannot be held to be arbitrary or irrational so as to call for interference by this Court . 6. Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 17, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3