IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6919 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.7.2009 Ashwani Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Samir Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.B.S.Mangat, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This petition seeks quashing of action of respondents No.1 to 4 in allotting the tender for Labour & Cartage Work of Foodgrain 2009-10 to respondent No.5 at 20% above the scheduled rates, through private negotiation. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of tender notice, he gave a bid which was the lowest being 18% below the scheduled rates. Respondent No.5 gave his bid at 10% below the scheduled rates on 19.3.2009. The tender was opened on 20.3.2009 and though the offer of the petitioner was lowest, the bid was not accepted. Later the petitioner came to know that contract was awarded to respondent No.5 at a higher rate without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. 3. In the reply filed, the stand taken by the District Controller, Civil Writ Petition No.6919 of 2009 [2] Food , Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs is that Tender Allotment Committee was given warning by some Labour Unions that labour would not be provided if rates below the scheduled rates were accepted. The Tender Allotment Committee was of the view that there was no economic viability in the rates quoted. There was apprehension of stock not being lifted and earlier some of the labour contractors were black listed on account of default. Therefore, the tenders were cancelled and fresh tenders were called for 3.4.2009. Thereafter, the work was allotted to respondent No.5 20% above the scheduled rates by negotiation, even though his offer was 30% above the scheduled rates. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the tender notice, there was no bar to the rate below the scheduled rates being quoted. Even respondent No.5 had offered rates below the scheduled rates. There could not be any presumption that work below the scheduled rate will not be executed. In any case, no condition was imposed that rates below scheduled rates could not be quoted. The contract has been given to respondent No.5 without any fresh tender notice and without giving opportunity to the petitioner or any other person for giving the tender. Once the tender conditions were complied with, the tender could not be rejected and thereafter work allotted on pick and choose basis. 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, Civil Writ Petition No.6919 of 2009 [3] 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 Energy Ltd. and another v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and others 2007[8] SCC 1 : Paras 36, 38 & 39. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents are unable to justify the award of contract to respondent No.5 without following procedure in accordance with law. 7. We, therefore, quash the decision of the official respondents in allotting the contract by private negotiation. It is, however, made clear that the work already executed till date , will not be affected. The respondents will be at liberty to allot work by following the procedure in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 14, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No