IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10871/2011 Date of decision:22.09.2011. Balihar Singh .................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and others. .................Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.SS Salar,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.APS Mann,Addl.AG Punjab for respondent no.1 Mr.Rakesh Gupta,Advocate for respondents 2 to 4. Mr.JS Gill,Advocate for respondent no.5. Jaswant Singh,J. Petitioner-Balihar Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the acceptance of offer of respondent no.5- M/s J.R.Solvent Limited, for construction of godown under Private Entrepreneurs Godowns Scheme, 2008 (for short the 2008 Scheme); as well as a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept petitioner's offer. Briefly noticed, it is averred in the petition that vide advertisement dated 26.6.2010 (P1), respondent no.2-Managing Director, Pun Grain, Department of Food and Supplies (Consumer CWP No.10871/2011 2 Affairs) Punjab invited sealed bids from the private persons for construction of godowns by arranging their own resources viz. land and capital, which were to be taken on rent for a period of 8 years on the accepted offer rate. One of the criteria which was part of technical bid was distance from the railway shed. As per clause 9(iii)(b) of the tender document, for godowns having storage capacity of less than 25,000 MTs. the location of the godown should have been within 8 kms.; and godowns above the storage capacity of 25,000 MTs., should have been preferably within the radius of 8 kms. It is further averred that the petitioner alongwith others including respondent no.5-M/s J.R. Solvent submitted their tenders whereafter the sites were inspected. It is alleged that the petitioner proposed to construct the godown with the capacity of 10,000 MTs. at a distance of 5.5 km. from the the rail head, 4.8 km. from the grain market and 4.3 km. from the Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation and 4.9 km. from FCI godown. At the same time it is alleged that the site where respondent no.5 proposed to construct the godown was at a distance of 9 kms. from the rail head, 8.3 kms. from Grain Market, 7.8 kms. from Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation and 8.3 kms. from FCI godown. It is thus alleged that since distance of godown of respondent no.5 from various locations was double, he was not even qualifying for opening of the financial bid but despite that respondent no.3-General Manager, Pun Grain for extraneous considerations accepted the offer of respondent no.5 and other applicants @ Rs.4.95 per quintal per month without even calling CWP No.10871/2011 3 the petitioner for negotiating the rate. The petitioner has thus challenged the acceptance of offer of respondent no.5 on the ground of his godown being at a greater distance than that of the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued. Separate replies have been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and 5. In the short reply filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 it is averred that since site of respondent no.5 was found fit by the Committee, his financial bid was entertained. Ranking of the technically qualified bidders was done as per terms and conditions of the tender. The bidder who quoted minimum rate was ranked as L-1 whereas the one with highest rate was ranked as L-8. After the aforesaid ranking a comparative chart (R3) was prepared by normalization of financial bids. It is stated that normalization of financial bids lays down the formula for deducting the transportation charges which generally FCI has to incur in case the distance of the proposed site of the godown exceeds 8 kms from the rail head as has been done in the instant case also. It is further averred that after normalization the rate found applicable came to be Rs.4.95 per quintal per month. Since as per financial bid petitioner's ranking was L-5 while that of respondent no.5 was L-4, so respondent no.5 was offered a counter bid of Rs.4.92 against normalized rate of Rs.4.95, which respondent no.5 accepted. It is stated that had respondent no.5 rejected the counter offer then petitioner would have been eligible to get the offer of Rs.4.95. It is thus given out that petitioner's offer has rightly CWP No.10871/2011 4 not been accepted. As regards the distance between the proposed godowns and railhead it is stated that in the tender it has been categorically mentioned that the site of the bidder should be preferably within 8 kms and thus the allegation of the petitioner that site of respondent no.5 being beyond 8 kms. was not even eligible, is wrong. In its reply respondent no.5 has denied the averments made in the petition and stated that its proposal fulfilled all the conditions of the tender document and as such it has rightly been accepted. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book carefully. After giving our anxious thoughts to the respective pleas, we find that this petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. The whole case being built up by the petitioner is that the proposed site of his godown is within less than 8 kms. from the various points i.e. railhead, grain market, FCI godown etc. and thus in a much more advantageous position than the location of the godown of respondent no.5, whose site in any case is at a distance of more than 8 kms. and thus rendering him ineligible. It is therefore contended that the acceptance of offer of respondent no.5 is arbitrary and liable to be struck down. The plea raised is untenable and thus rejected. It is clear from the terms and conditions of the tender that the stipulation in respect of the distance only says that the site of the bidder should be preferably within 8 kms., meaning thereby that if the site is beyond 8 kms. does not render it ineligible. It is further apparent from the CWP No.10871/2011 5 written statement that the respondent authorities have followed a laid down formula for deducting the transportation charges which the FCI has to incur in case the distance of the proposed site of the godown exceeds 8 kms. from the railhead. In the comparative ranking, respondent no.5 has been found to be of higher ranking than the petitioner and the bid of the respondent no.5 has been accepted for an amount which is less than the fixed normalized rate. It is well settled (Tata Cellular v. Union of India,(1994) 6 SCC 651) by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the courts while exercising power of judicial review in matters of government contracts/tenders examines only the decision making process and not the merits of the decision as it does not sit as an appellate court. In the present case we find no such grounds which may warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution by this Court. Dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) (Jaswant Singh) Judge Judge 22.9.2011 joshi