IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.8996 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.8.2009 The New Baba Farid Truck Operators Union. -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present:- Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bakshi, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.6. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of allotment of Transport Contract to respondent No.6 for lifting wheat and paddy from the different mandis of District Faridkot. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of Tender Notice dated 24.1.2009, which was published in the newspaper, the petitioner submitted its bid through E-mail as well as by putting its tender in the box, as prescribed in the Tender Notice. Respondent No.6 did not submit any bid. The tender process was cancelled vide order dated 9.3.2009, Annexure P-4, passed CWP No.8996 of 2009 by the Chairman, Tender Committee i.e. Deputy Director, (Field)- cum-Regional Manager, PUNGRAIN, Ferozepur represented by respondent No.4. Thereafter, without undertaking any fresh tender process, work was allotted to respondent No.6 whose bid was earlier rejected, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner or any other person. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5, who were functionaries of Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation (PUNGRAIN), it has not been disputed that tender of respondent No.6 was earlier found to be invalid. As regards initiating fresh tender process, the stand of the said respondent is that short term tender notice was issued for all mandis vide notice dated 27.3.2009 and the petitioner was at liberty to submit his tender in response thereto. The petitioner failed to do so and tender of respondent No.6 was accepted. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It has not been disputed that only respondent No.6, whose tender was earlier rejected, submitted the fresh tender. It has also not been disputed the fresh Tender Notice dated 27.3.2009 was not published in the manner in which the earlier Tender Notice was published. Obviously, no one came to know about the fresh Tender Notice and nobody competed. This was in flagrant violation of law, requiring providing of level playing field to all the willing competitors, so that the work allotment by a 2 CWP No.8996 of 2009 public authority is fair, transparent and in objective manner, after giving due opportunity to all concerned. Absence of public notice enables tender to be secretly given not only depriving others of opportunity but also at the cost of public interest. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K 1980(4) SCC 1, Sachidanand Parade v. State of W.B. 1987 (2) SCC 295 and M.I. Builders v. Radhe Sham 1999(6) SCC 464. In the present case, it is patent that the respondents have not only committed illegality, they have acted in such a way as to ensure that the work is allotted to respondent No.6 by excluding all other eligible persons. 6. This aspect of the matter has also been earlier dealt with in order of this Court dated 14.7.2009 in C.W.P. No.6919 of 2009 Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab and others. Quashing allotment of work given without following any procedure according to law. It was observed:- “5. From the above undisputed facts, it is clear that tender process was cancelled as it was thought that rates below scheduled rates will not be viable. Assuming it was so, fresh tender process had to be initiated clearly specifying that rates below scheduled rates could not be quoted and giving opportunity to eligible contenders to compete on equal footing which, admittedly, was not done. Work was allotted by negotiating with selected person or persons. This was not permissible in law. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance 3 CWP No.8996 of 2009 Energy Ltd. and another v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and others 2007[8] SCC 1 : Paras 36, 38 & 39.” 7. We, accordingly, allow this petition and quash allotment of work to respondent No.6. The Regional Manager, PUNGRAIN who is the Chairman of the Tender Committee who passed the order will be liable to pay costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Legal Aid Committee. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Punjab who may consider initiating departmental action against the said officer in the light of above finding, after following due process of law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 26, 2009 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) ashwani JUDGE 4