IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.8075 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.7.2009 Sat Sahib and Company. -----Petitioner Vs. Food Corporation of India & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for respondent No.3. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of award of transportation contract by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to respondent No.3. 2. Case of the petitioner is that vide notice dated 7.2.2009, Tender Notice was issued for appointment of regular contractors for handling and transportation and long route road transportation for a period of two years. The petitioner was CWP No.8075 of 2009 among one of the tenderers. However, the contract has been awarded to respondent No.3. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that rates quoted by the petitioner were lower but the same were not properly evaluated. In para 4 of the petition, following chart has been given:- “Petitioner Respondent 15% ASOR 60% 39% ASOR 70% 90% ASOR 82% 80% ASOR 50% to Rajasthan 89% All over India Petitioner Respondent 75% 125% 1% 27% 51% 79% 43% 57% At par Labour 200%” 4. It has been argued that respondent No.3 quoted higher labour rate and also mentioned separate rates for Rajasthan, which were not provided in the form. The same were taken into account and tender has been allotted for transportation in Rajasthan. 5. Stand of the FCI is that the evaluation was proper. The petitioner did not tick any of the three options in the format for quoting labour rates i.e. at schedule of rates, above the schedule of rates or below the schedule of rates and therefore, the tender submitted by the petitioner was defective and in the evaluation, claim of the petitioner that rates quoted by him may be treated at par with the schedule of rates, could not be accepted. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 being even otherwise 2 CWP No.8075 of 2009 eligible to be given the contract, mere quoting of rates for Rajasthan for transportation, did not render it disqualified. 6. We have perused the tender form submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has not ticked any of the three options. In these circumstances, the view taken by the FCI could be a possible view. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rates quoted by the petitioner would work out to Rs.4 crores lower than the rates quoted by respondent No.3 and there could be extraneous considerations in awarding of the contract. 8. If it is so, the petitioner can take it up at appropriate level. 9. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 07, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3