PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 784 of 2011. Date of decision: January 17, 2011. *** M/S Jagdamba Co-owners Vs. Food Corporation of India and others. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Acting Chief Justice; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih. *** Present: Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate, with Ms. Sukhwinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** Ranjan Gogoi, ACJ (Oral) This writ petition has been filed against a decision of the respondents not to open the final bid of the writ petitioner who had submitted a tender pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender for construction of godowns for storage requirements for the Food Corporations of India. In the terms of the tender notice , in the event of two tenderers having 100% of the capacity or three tenders having 50% of the capacity or five tenders with 25% of the capacity sought for were available, the other tenders with lesser capacity were not to be considered. In the present case the bid made by the petitioner was not considered on the ground that 5 tenderers having 25% capacity were available. Contending that two out of the five tenderers with 25% of the capacity, who were short listed, did not submit valid tenders he had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 22227 of 2010 which writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 14.12.2010 requiring the respondents to decide the question of fact raised in the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondents having reiterated their earlier stand by an order dated 3.1.2011 this 2nd round of litigation has been initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that one of the tenders i.e M/S Inder Singh and others comprised of 8 co-owners out of -2- CWP No. 784 of 2011. whom 7 had signed the co-ownership deed but the same was not signed by one ie. one Smt. Rachna wife of Shri Amit. In the absence of the aforesaid co-owner as a party to the deed, the tender submitted by M/S Inder Singh and others is a invalid tender which fact according to the learned counsel for the petitioner would require the respondents to consider the tender submitted by the persons having less than 25% storage capacity. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported as Rejendra Partap Singh Vs. Rameshwar Parshad AIR 1999 (SC) 37 to substantiate the arguments that in the absence of signatures of one of the c0-owners, the deed is invalid. We have considered the order dated 3.1.2011 passed by the Addl: General Manager (P.E.G.), for Managing Director, HAFED. It appears that the issue with regard to the absence of signatures of the one of the co- owners Smt. Rachna wife of Shri Amit was referred to the learned Advocate General, Haryana who gave his opinion on the basis of the same decision of the Apex Court ie. Rajendra Partap Singh Versus Rameshwar Prashad. The opinion given by the learned Advocate General, Haryana was to the effect that the tender submitted by M/S Inder Singh could be considered to be a valid tender. The communication dated 3.1.2011 also indicates that the bid of another tenderer, Sarbati Devi, was also referred to the learned Advocate General, Haryana who gave his opinion that the bid could be treated as valid for 68400 MT capacity. Therefore acting on the advise given by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, the respondents came to the conclusion that as there were five tenderers with 25% capacity, the cases of the other tenderers need not to be considered. The decision making process culminating in the decision, as -3- CWP No. 784 of 2011. noticed above, would go to show that the respondents have acted fairly and had arrived at the final conclusion on the basis of the opinion given by the learned Advocate General of the State, No mala fide or arbitrary action is disclosed. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to convince the court that the legal affect of one of the co-owners not having signed the deed should be gone into we are of the view that the aforesaid question of law need not be gone into by us as the same would amount to an collateral exercise and that too in the absence of affected parties i.e co-owners. The primary task of the Court is to determine the validity of the decision making process and not a question of law that may have been collaterally arisen. The decision making process having already been held by us to be free from any mala fides or arbitrariness, we are of the view that this writ petition should not be admitted We, therefore, decline to entertain this writ petition and dismiss the same. (Ranjan Gogoi) Acting Chief Justice January 17, 2011 (Augustine Goerge Masih) Malik Judge