IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6924 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.7.2009 Satpal. -----Petitioner Vs. Food Corporation of India & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Vikram Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for respondents. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition has been filed for quashing decision of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in accepting tender of respondent No.6. 2. Grievance in the petition is that in the Tender Notice, Annexure P-2, there is a note at the top that the tender form was not transferable. Inspite of the said note, even though respondent No.6 neither purchased the tender form nor downloaded the same from the Internet, its tender form was accepted without any objection. Referring to judgments of the CWP No.6924 of 2009 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India b1986 (3) SCC 247, Tata Cellular v. Union of India 1994 (6) SCC 651 and W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. 2001(2) SCC 451, it is submitted that the tender form not in conformity with the conditions of Tender Notice, could not be accepted. Thus, it is submitted that if any conditions are notified, the authority must conform to those conditions. 3. Learned counsel for the FCI points out that even though a note has been printed in the tender form that the document was not transferable, this note was not a tender condition and a tender, offering to perform work on lower price, could not be rejected only on that ground. He also submits that steps will be taken either to remove this note or if it is considered necessary to have this note, conditions will be enforced, in future. 4. Having regard to the fact that the bid offered by respondent No.6 was higher than the bid offered by the petitioner, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same, merely on the ground that respondent No.6 did not directly purchase the tender form but got its copy from someone else. Learned counsel for the FCI says that while submitting the tender form, the price of the tender document was deposited by respondent No.6. 5. The petition is dismissed. 2 CWP No.6924 of 2009 6. Before parting with the order, we consider it appropriate to advert to an important aspect of litigation relating to tenders. 7. Large number of petitions are being filed on small issues, which at times, entangle the Corporation in unnecessary litigation, apart from unnecessarily wasting the time of the Court. It is now well settled that in the giving of contracts, the State has to act in a fair and transparent manner, consistent with public interest and there can be judicial review of the process of giving or declining of the contracts. This development is bound to give rise to grievances of the parties who may not be successful in getting the contracts and if there is some in-house mechanism by which the objections of the affected parties are redressed by passing a speaking order, this can save time and public money of the Corporation as well as of the Court and may also satisfy the unsuccessful parties in many cases. 8. We, therefore, direct respondent No.1 Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the FCI to consider evolving an in house mechanism, whereby grievances of affected parties can be redressed speedily in a fair and transparent manner. Needless to say, while such a mechanism may not be a substitute for adjudication by Courts, in many matters, such a process may reduce litigation and may also satisfy some of the affected parties. This may be done within three months from the date of 3 CWP No.6924 of 2009 receipt of a copy of this order. An affidavit of compliance may be filed by November 30, 2009. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 09, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 4