CWP No.3200 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No.3200 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.5.2009 Kewal Krishan and another ..Petitioners vs. Food Corporation of India,Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. --- Present: Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. -- J.S.Khehar,J.(Oral) When this matter came up for hearing for the first time on 5.3.2009, we passed the following order while issuing notice of motion:- “Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the tender notice dated 7.2.2009 (Annexure P-1), wherein for Food Corporation of India, District Kurukshetra, the nature of contract has been defined as under:- “Handling & Transportation & Long Route Transportation”. The cost of the tender form for Food Corporation of India, District Kurukshetra, has been depicted as Rs.1,000/-, earnest money has been expressed as Rs.84 lacs and the estimated value of the contract, under reference, is Rs.42 crores. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the following condition depicted at Sr. No.2 in the tender notice:- “Tenderer who wish to apply for contract of F.C.I. District Kurukshetra, will have to compulsorily purchase two tender forms, one for Handling & Transportation and one for Long Route Road Transportation by making payment of individual forms separately.” CWP No.3200 of 2009 2 It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is wholly unjustified for the Food Corporation of India to require the tenderers to respond to the tender notice, under reference, by submitting a separate tender for Handling & Transportation, as well as, a separate tender for Long Route Transportation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this action of the respondent - Food Corporation of India prejudices the petitioner, inasmuch as, even though, the petitioner wishes to respond to the contract relating to Handling & Transportation, the petitioner will have to deposit earnest money of Rs.84 lacs, although, he has no desire whatsoever to bid for the Long Route Transportation contract. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is clearly contrary to a similar stipulation in respect of Food Corporation of India, District Karnal. Notice to Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate, for today itself i.e. 5.3.2009.” Written statement has now been filed where the stand taken in preliminary objection No.2 is to the following effect:- “...In fact, it is in the year 2005 when the Food Corporation of India engaged the services of the experts namely M/s Mckinsey & Co. for making recommendations in order to streamline the contractual works of the Food Corporation of India. The recommendations of the experts was then discussed in a workshop with top national and regional players which was held at Panchkula on 01.08.2005 wherein as many as 76 contractors participated and the suggestions made by the contractors were duly considered and incorporated. Besides the other recommendations, it was also recommended by the said experts that the Food Corporation of India should invite composite tenders at the District level and initially to start with, three districts namely Bhatinda, Faridkot and Ferozepur were CWP No.3200 of 2009 3 identified in the State of Punjab and three districts namely Hisar, Karnal and Kurukshetra were identified in the State of Haryana and four districts namely Jhansi, Sitapur, Shahjahanpur and Agra were identified in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Since then composite tenders are invited by the Food Corporation of India in Haryana Region for these Districts of Haryana and the execution of work on the said pattern is being run smoothly. So far as the inviting of composite tender of Handling & Transportation and long route transportation for Kurukshetra vide Tender Notice (Annexure P-1) is concerned, it is submitted that it was also in the year 2005 itself when in the said discussion, it was observed that District Kurukshetra and Ferozepur are compact and having a single Revenue Districts and, therefore, one contractor for HTC and RTC be appointed. Revenue District Kurukshetra and Kaithal which fall in FCI District of Kurukshetra are compact & the area is very small & therefore, one contractor has been felt to be sufficient for executing the work of the Food Corporation of India District Kurukshetra for the awarding of a composite contract of Handling & Transportation and Long Route transportation. As against it, Food Corporation of India District Karnal have five Revenue Districts namely Panipat,Karnal, Jagadhri,Ambala and Yamuna Nagar which is apread over in a vast area & even goes beyond Kurukshetra District by passing it and therefore, separate contracts for Handling & Transportation and Long route road transportation have been invited since the date of taking of the said decision. It is thus wrong to say that this practice is being initiated for the first time. In the given situation, as it is the internal functioning of the Food Corporation of India for which the officer concerned are the best experts in the awarding of such contracts...” In view of the express stand adopted at the hands of the respondents, as has been extracted hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the CWP No.3200 of 2009 4 claim raised on behalf of the petitioner does not merit consideration, and the instant petition is accordingly dismissed. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge ( Uma Nath Singh ) Judge May 20, 2009 rk