C.W.P. No.17138 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17138 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 11.02.2010 M/s Mahavir Singh and Company, Ward No.2, Khanouri ............Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India through its Managing Director and others. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for the respondents. ALOK SINGH, J. 1. Petitioner is invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.8.2009 by which respondent No.1 has awarded contract i.e. CWC Base (Non Siding Godowns) HTC for Nabha Rail Head to respondent No.4. C.W.P. No.17138 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 2. The brief facts of the present case are that earlier the contract i.e. CWC Base (Non Siding Godowns) HTC for Nabha Rail Head was awarded to Bhan Singh (who is not a party in the present writ petition) for two years i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10. However, Bhan Singh abandoned the same and did not execute the contract. Vide telegraphic order dated 01.06.2009, respondent authorities sought the consent for the allotment of left over work by Sh. Bhan Singh from the petitioner, to execute at the risk and cost of above named contractor Bhan Singh. Petitioner accorded his consent for executing the left over work at the rate of Rs.114% ASOR on 20.06.2009. Vide telegram dated 13.7.2009, petitioner was asked to execute the work left by earlier Contractor Bhan Singh at his risk and cost at the rate of Rs.114% ASOR. Having received the confirmation by letter dated 31.7.2009, petitioner raised infrastructure and paid a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the FCI worker union through its Secretary and petitioner company also paid a huge amount for arrangement of transportation of vehicle to execute the contract work. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 17.8.2009, respondents authorities illegally awarded the same contract to one Sultan Singh, respondent No.4, inspite of the fact that petitioner has started the execution of work as per award of the contract issued to him. Petitioner made representation, however, no action was taken. Ultimately, petitioner filed CWP No.13765 of 2009 which was disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to decide the C.W.P. No.17138 of 2009 (O&M) -3- representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner vide order dated 4.9.2009. Respondent No.2 rejected the representation moved by the petitioner vide order dated 14.10.2009. Hence, the present petition. 3. Written statement has been filed by the respondents No.1 to 3. The main defence taken in the written statement is that contract was awarded to the petitioner subject to the outcome of the Tender Enquiry dated 2.6.2009 at the risk and cost of Sh. Bhan Singh. In the Tender Enquiry dated 2.6.2009, it was found that CWC non siding was received at the rate of Rs.111% ASOR i.e. less than 114% ASOR being the rate of the petitioner and contract was awarded to Sultan Singh at the rate of Rs.111% ASOR. Hence, the contract was rightly awarded to the respondent No.4. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Both the parties have not disputed Annexure R-I dated 13.7.2009 reads as under:- “Annexure R-1 TELEGRAM MAHAVIR SINGH & CO WARD NO.2, KHANAURI MANDI, TEH.MOONAK DISTT. SANGRUR. REFYR OFFER DATED 20.6.2009 REGRADING CARRYING OUT WORK IN CWC BASED DEPOT NABHA (NON SIDING GODOWN) ATG 114% ASOR FOR AWARDED RATE OF FSD NABHA AGAINST TENDER ENQUIRY DATED 11.2.09 (.) APPROVAL OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR OFFER TO WORK AT 114% ASOR IN NON SIDING GODOWN OF C.W.P. No.17138 of 2009 (O&M) -4- CWC NABHA IS HEREBY CONVEYED SUBJECT TO OUTCOME OF TENDER ENQUIRY DATED 2.6.09 AT THE RISK AND COST OF SH. BHAN SINGH. No. S&C/2/9/HTC/FSD Nabha/TE 23.6.07 dated 13.6.2009 SD/- MANAGER (CONT.) FOR GENERAL MANAGER FCI R.O. PB.: CHANDIGARH. P.C.C. TO The party concerned. Copy to 1. The Area Manager, FCI, District Office Patiala. 2. The Asstt. Genl. Manager (Movt.) Local. 3. The Manager (Cont./Co. Ord), Local; 4. Guard file. For General Manager” 6. Annexure P-3 dated 31.7.2009 by which petitioner was informed about the grant of contract in his favour also made reference to the telegram dated 13.7.2009 on the subject. 7. In view of the contents of Annexure R-I dated 13.7.2009 and Annexure P-3 dated 31.7.2009, it can safely be held that no unconditional contract was granted to the petitioner rather petitioner was informed that he was being permitted to execute the work at the rate of Rs.114% ASOR subject to the outcome of Tender Enquiry. In the Tender Enquiry rate of the respondent No.4 was Rs.111% ASOR and was found to be less than rate of the petitioner i.e. Rs.114% ASOR. Hence, respondents authorities were well within their jurisdiction to grant the contract to respondent No.4. Petitioner cannot be said having any grievance against the same. C.W.P. No.17138 of 2009 (O&M) -5- 8. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 11.02.2010 JUDGE ashish