^ ,f0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. (^? PETrfIONERS '^/ ^•'^.•°" ./' , ^ 1. t'i/S. Coal Movers, A partner- ship Fj.ria havj.ng its office at 126, Transport Nagar, Korba, C.G. 2» Rajesh Kuiaar Murariea s/o Shri N.M.Murarka r/o Main road, Korba, C.G. 3. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, s/o Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal, about 42 years, r/o Sarvamangala Road, Korba, C.G V E R SU RESPOI'roEI'lT South Eastern Coalfields•Liraited (S.E.C.L.} A Subs.tdiary of Coal India Limltecl, througb the Seaeral Manager, (aic) s.E.C.x.. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G, WRCT PETITXON VtSDEB. ARTICL.E 226/227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF iNDIA^---~ S&M »':: ijfl|.&ii;;ft!^ B% HIGH COU?T OF CHHATTISGARH; BILASPUR (SB: HOW'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. W.A. SHISHAK) WRT.T PETITION N0.251/2001 • ' M/s. Coal Movers and others Vs South Eastern Coalfields I»td. -oOo- ^ Shri Sunj.1 Sinha, learned counsel for the petitloners. Shri Dhirendra Mlshra, with Shri P.S. Koshy, .Learnedcounsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER ( Passed on 29/6/2001 ) The petltioners. are seeking a dlrection from this Court to be issued to the respondent to open the bid sheet of the petitioner no.l in relation to notice intlting tender no.1761 an<3 also another notice inviting tender no.1763 both 1 dated 3/1/2001. Another relief feil^,t-l'sought 1s to declare the experience o£ J;he petitioners nos. 2 and 3 as the experience of the petitioner no»l. 2) The petitioner no.l submitted tender in response to tender notlce dated 3/1/2001 for the purpose of hiringof payloader for loading coal into wagons at Gevra Road Railway siding with manimum 13,670 tonnes per <3ay including levelling the coal loaded to avoid over/iinder loadi.ng. The may e3<perience criteria stated in the NIT^be'quoted If: y li r» i:..; A: ..2 ":i'i«atg®,. Tender must haveexp.erler.ee j.n sl.mi.lar nature of work in^a single contract of Rs. 30. 00 lakhs^ <3urj.ng any of the preceed- ing tnree years and have executed t.otal work of Rs.60.00 lakhs during the past three years . 3) . Another tender notj.se vide NIT no.1763 dated 3/1/2001 1s as regards transportation of coal from Gevra CHP/FBs (Sl/Cl bunkers) to Junadih sidingwith minimLun 3600 tonnes per day inc-ludj.ng opening of bunker chute and clean-Lng splllage coal Tselow the bunker. lead 1 Km. .approximate. Para three of said bld jls as regards experience crlteria which may be extracted; "Tender must have experience in sj.mllsr nature of work in a single contract of te.30.00 lakhs executed during any of the preceedlng three years an<3 have executed tbtal work of ;Rs. 60.00 lakhs t3urj.ng the past three years".-- 4) The petitioner no;l submitted tenders In respect of the tender noticeyreferred to above,, The fir.st. part of the WIT 1s as regards the experience document and the second part is as regards bj.d sheet. It may be stated that unless one fulfills the first cbnd-ttion i.e., expe- rj-ence conditjlon, the s econd containing the bifl sheet will not be opened. By letter dated 1S/2/2001 the petitioner was advised to attend the prl.ce bid open.ing and all the tenderers were directed to submit documents as required by th-ts lettsr. The petltioner no.l itfas asked to. submit the foit®i./j.ng.a&cuments namely; 1} docuroent in supporfc of past; experience criteria as per NIT in the name of the firm; . 2) IncomeeTex clearance certifi.cate in -the name o£ the firm? 3) Partnership firm registration certificate; and 4) Road Tax payment certificates of pa'jioaders 8^ i> *"f fn-^ lai IIIa ! WSiS @ cgia ,,.:«'IFS' «^!sy!w" • * -^/ o * xtfith Xns-irance. In response to the above letter, the petltioner no.l replied to respondent on 17/2/2001, ParS' no.l of tt-ie sald reply states that documentf- in support ffc^'tne past experience of the partners of the firm have already been enclosed with the tender bid. .1-t is, fiirther, cbntended in the said letter that the experienGe of the partners of the flrm is lawfully regarded as the experience of the firm In accordance wi.th the provisions of law. It is aiso further stated in the said reply that since the firm is newly formed at free wlll of the partners asspecified in the deed of partnership, furni.shed with didg; tender bid. In para n0o3, 4-t is stated Deed-of.partnership have been executed and submitted;" The regj.stration is in process and shall be submitted at appronriate tl.me and when any' legality arises 5) On receipt of the reply from the petitioner no.l , th.e respondent on examiaation of the documents submitted befare it, was of the view that the peti- tioner no.l had not fuj.fl.lled tae conditions requlred by the respondento Accordingly, the bid sheet of the petitioner no.l was not opened. 6) Mr» sunil Siriha, learned counsel for the petitioner contends. that since the partners of the firm naniely petitioners nos. 2 and 3 have required certificates/expefAence required by 'che respondent, there was no reasonable ground to refuse to open the bid sheet of the petitioner. laearned counsel „..^^ ..^,,., ....... /^ <- • 606 of Andhra Pradesh Hj.gh Court and submits v-^ that.tender by a partnership £irm, the expe- rlence of managing partner or any partner will be t=k en to be the experience of the firms and therefore, the tender of the firm cannot be rejected on that ground. At this stage it may be stated that tender was submitted by the petit.i.oner no.l. Tb.e partners naraely petj.tloners nos. 2 and 3 have been brought only before this Court,. 7) Return has been filed on behalf of the responcient. Shri Dhirendra Mishra, learned counsel appearj.ng with Shri P.S. Koshy on behalf of the respondent submits that the present tenderer did not comply with the requiranents of the VTI'T as explained to them in the letter ^lo.SECL/bsP/CMC/ 1373 dated 14/2/2001. It is contended in para 5.8 of the return that the petltloners failed to produce the requisite document before opening of Part-II. It is contended on'behalf of the responderit that the experience required by MIT is the experj.ence of the tenderer i.e...H/s. Coal Movers and not J.n the name of individual oartners of the firm. 8) Mr. Dhirendra Mishra submits that the Dartners have submitted tenders as a £irm. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that the l^, tender in the bid sheet,,"l3learly on behalf of the <- ^ • . . . •. • . . . firm and not on behalf of the IndivAduals. The submiss.i.on of learned counsel for the respondent is that when NIT was issued on 3/1/2001, the m: tf 5 present firm was not even born ^C'. In fact the firm came to be constituted .only on - 4/2/1001. It is contended by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent that the firm ought to have been a registered flrm while submitting the tender papers. However, admittedly at the relevant tj.me, fhe firm hag\ not come into exlsteence C1^>^ aparf-fran the''fa.ct that it is i%TT5' unregistered ^ firm tlll date. 9) Shrl Sunil Sinha, leamed counsel for the petitionersi on the other han<3, submits that there is no Isw which would requir.e that a firm should be a regisgered firm in order to submit tender as in the present case, As against his submissi.-on,, iihri Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in publJ.G interest and in -order to safe-guard the business of the respondent; it is absolutely necessary that the respondent deals wlth an entity i,e., a firm whlch can sue and can be sued on the firra name. It wouldnot have been'pessibie to do so inasrauch as the firm is not a registered firm. Mr», Mishra submits that once the work is allotte<3, a valid eontract has to be entered into x..rith ±he firm and if necessary the r esponcient ,'ould see to it that the contract is entered into between the respondent and another Fegis^aered firm in order to ensure the busnness Qf the resoondent,, Another si.ibmi- ssion of Mr. Mishra is that it is a.msfcter of •ro-) ! ^ ' • policy on the paEt of the respondent as regards the conditions •sf~presfeij,LlTi9 and such policy is to be issued by the respondent alone. It is not a case of the vTTit petitioners that the k.- •:"!&-^ Ua-i3!i, fl:s:-]r respondent has In any manner acted ma.laficle or orbitrarily or that there i unreasonableness and lllegality in the action;taken by the respondent. I-n this vi'ew of the matter Ite is submitted that the petitioner has no locus-standl to call for Interference with th.e decision of the Competent Authority. 10) Mr, Sunil Sj.nha, learned couj-isel for the petitloners submits that the petitj.oners may be allowed to submit their registratlon documents and upon such si.ibmissj.on, the bid sheet of the petitioner no.l may also be opened. In my view ln the facts and circumstances that I have stated above, it t?oi!il<3 not be proper for this Court to accept this s.ubmi ss ion . 11) Lookinq to the ent.i.re facts and clrcumstances of the present case, I am of the vi.ew that the petitioner has not been able to comply wlth the requ.i.rements of the NIT» Even otherwise, it will be unsaxe on the part of the respondent fco havg any contract vlth an unregistered firm In larger oublic Interest. 12) In the premises afbresaj.d. I am' not J-nclined to interfere yith the acfcion of the . respondent in the prasent case. ^cco'rdingly this petj.tlon -ts dismlssed. Hox<rever, I make ho order as to costs o Interlm orS.er passed on 28/2/2001 . J-s vacated. ' Sd/- ChiefJusfice s m a ^' r-M '•;^i \;1 i,