IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2718 of 2011 Decided on: 25.5.2011. __________________________________________________________ The Khabli DoSarka Co-Op Goods Transport Socieity Ltd. … Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioners : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Raghunandan Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma. The petition has been filed on the following prayers:- (I) Annexure P2, P3 be quashed/set aside. (II) Respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to award the impugned tender to the next bidder in terms of lower rates. (III) Or, the impugned tender be quashed and set aside and the same be advertised afresh. 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, the following stand has been taken in response to para 11 of the petition:- “Denied in toto. The fact here is that the entire process of tender calling/opening/rate comparison/rate finalization/declaration of successful bidders was done on 25th of March, 2011 and thereafter the finalized rates were sent to the District Magistrate, Kangra for approval who on 16th of April, 2011 vide Annexure R1 approved the same and thereafter the replying respondent No.2 requested through Annexure R2 to the successful bidders to complete the due formalities of agreements etc. and 1 Whether reports of the local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 whereafter the respondent No.3 executed the agreement/surety bond as per P3.” 3. It is averred as under on behalf of respondent No.3 in reply to paras 5 to 11 of the petition:- “Paras 5 to 11 of the petition in so far as they relate to the condition of tender are concerned are a matter of record. However, the petitioners are misconstruing the same. Detailed facts have been given in the preliminary submissions supra. The tender of the replying respondent was found to be lowest on 25.3.2011 but the rates were finalized on 21.4.2011 and the award letter was given on 28.4.2011. It is wrong and denied that the entire process of rate finalization and negotiation were to be completed on the very day when the tenders were to be opened. In fact, the tender rates were to be approved by the District Magistrate and after the approval of the rates, the Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation had to convey the approval of the same to the successful bidders/parties/tenderers and thereafter the award letter had to be issued. The rates were approved on 21.4.2011 and award letter issued on 28.4.2011 and well within the period the respondent has executed the agreement and has furnished the security of Rs. 1.00 lac. It is wrong and denied that the tender document expired on 4.11.2011 or that the agreement was to be executed within ten days on 25.3.2011 and likewise the FDR was to be pledged on 25.3.2011 itself.” 4. On 8.3.2011 tender, Annexure P-2, was floated by respondent No.2 for transportation/carriage of food grains and other essential commodities. Whereas, respondent No.3 was the successful bidder, the petitioner-Society remained unsuccessful. It has challenged the entire process on the ground that since the tender was opened on 25th March, 2011, respondent No.3 being the successful bidder was to enter into an agreement with 3 respondent No.2 within ten days as stipulated under clause (6) of the tender notice, Annexure P-2. However, since it was done only on 22nd April, 2011, it was manifestly beyond time. Similarly, as per clause (7), respondent No. 3 was also required to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1 lac in the shape of a FDR with a nationalized bank besides furnishing two sureties each in the like amount within the same time, i.e. 10 days, which was also not done within time. On the strength of these two contentions, the tendering process is sought to be annulled by the petitioner. 5. Indisputably, the rates quoted by respondent No.3 were lower than those offered by the petitioner-Society. 6. A perusal of clause (6) of the tender document, Annexure P-2, would go to show that the requisite agreement stipulated therein is required to be entered into by the successful bidder within ten days. However, the starting point of the requisite period of ten days is not specified therein. In such circumstances, a reference is required to be made to clause (7), which provides that the requisite period of ten days during which the agreement is to be executed, security and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 lac each are to be furnished, would be reckoned from the date of acceptance of the contract. 7. In view of the above, when viewed in the light of clause (7) of tender notice, Annexure P-2, the stand on behalf of the respondents that “the finalized rates were sent to the District Magistrate, Kangra for approval who on the 16th of April, 2011 vide Annexure R-1 approved the same and thereafter the replying respondent No.2 requested through Annexure R2 to the successful bidders to complete the due formalities of agreement etc. and whereafter the respondent No.3 executed the agreement/surety bond as per Annexure P3”, appears to be genuine and justified. Since the contract was accepted by the District Magistrate, vide 4 Annexure R-1 on 16.4.2011, the requisite period for execution of agreement and furnishing of security and surety bonds was up to 26.4.2011 and the same having been executed and furnished on 22.4.2011 were well within time. 8. In view of the above, the petitioner-Society has not been able to make out a case for any interference with the tendering process at the hands of this Court and the petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. While parting, a reference may be made to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner-Society that it has as many as 58 trucks with it and the same are standing idle for lack of work. In such situation, in case respondent No.3 requires trucks for execution of the contract under reference, it may, as far as practicable, hire trucks from the petitioner-Society on usual terms and conditions. 10. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) May 25, 2011. Judge. (cr)