'l;^:^' I'ESt',^ IBS Bstii3!u3i1 liBUI1 iJSBS'1 iSBfi1;" ISI. 'i^.'i '-'u' [^•-;;i.:''-: SB. '.;;/"' :yii£l:sl&»i.,IIE!a^M^Miaiffi^NIMM2>»El. ;sa^ss@^i^Si^ier^iSW!^^i^ WI:ita^'a3^ l&-' ^S^^^i SS9 •;i^ ¥- :.^f [rss S-WWffi^ l^; i:w8SSif£t3S^&[l3U; 'M^WQ'^. 'l WS3fftiSJlSg. 'SSOIAJSg -jit-ra§s;M''i'BE> i9fVag!f33JlQ • ojiiffitas.iiciamiap :|q.iB3s@£);Btjq3 ;:S:(:B.S3}!^S1CI- :S®\JO .^o^s^lCt B ;:: |i».i:i- (•^^N >a'^^i:^g:.lN:^MJWtIt3 ^'S-~—j9S^8——. til[1^ ^ SE?'1^'^ III:;:'1;;:1. ------iiSrIe®i.i1^'1'': '^ressiBcipioKs-^ls^/M'X i''''''''i^iM.^S9sX^:S£-s -;;!::, •11''!. < ^ ..: .:...'.•":..- .!^',:%';'^ias»aE&;S , (i.iJB3siff?qq3):.nadsBijg:- -^CT.; ;i>,, ' .^EEi^jBdBi^jo^HS^^ajB^B.rBfit^;. 'i.tpeg^uqg. ayB'i JQ uos :is-res^ ,6 RSSB-^^^^ ;•GSffiBXSQ^^S^f^ :io^f»£iga^^KfS^ssix^i.!^.^. S910tJ^'^^5[JBii3{)]|Si[^: /N-;SeSJSBSS ffili.II 'oMiifiQiaai^iti.ESatt .^T7i-^; .-:-!i'••;•'•:''.'• @@KS'i8H WSSS^StMln ^aQSsm'im.^sassBSESissasBKi^i^aaei^ ^Siill'.'iMIBfl ./^'^.: '\ "r.' •: '• •"•.r;'"?.'.^ •„. ^L^»ri£w^_i ".^^'^^^^iJI^^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISOARHl Wilt Petltlon Ho. 1341 of 200S cf Moorarka Agencies - Versus - ^ State of Chhattisgarh 8s others .-•^. POST FOR OBDBR OB-?^ AU6UST. 2005 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge V 89 HIOH COVS.T OF JUDICATURE AT BILA8PUR. CHHATTI8GARH Writ Petition Ho. 1341 of 2005 Moorarka Agcncies - Versus - State of Chhattisgarh & others P£esent: - Mr. R. K. Gupta, Advocate; Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Dy. Adv. General: For the petitioner For the respondents Before Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo. J._ O R D ER (Passed on 3<_^'August, 2005) 1. The petitioner has preferrcd this writ petition under Article 326/227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order of respondent No.3 dated 18.2.2005 (Annexure P-1) whereby respondent No.3- Joint Director of Veterinary Servlces, Directorate of Veterinary Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur rejected the petitioner's tender and also invited fresh tenders vide publication dated 27.2.2005. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the respondents werc required to purchase vaccinc for their use against contagious diseases under the centrally sponsored scheme i.e. 'Assistance to state for the control of Animal Diseases' (ASCAD). Accordlngly, a notification inviting tenders froin the eligiblc contractors was published by respondent No.2 in daily Hindi newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 10.11.2004 for the purchase of various iteins including vaccincs. In response to that the petitioner submitted his tender documeuts and in all five persons submitted their tender documents. The tenders were opened on 4.1.3005 in presence of all the tenderers and the rates quoted by the petitioner were found to be lowest. However, the petitioner's tender was rejected on the grounds that the security deposit, which was required to be deposited through "bank draft', by mistake sam.e was advertised to be furnished by way of 'term deposit' and the second ground was that for purchase of vaccines was not mentioned in the notice inviting tender. After rejecting the petitioner's tender the respondents decided to invite fresh notice inviting tender and accordingly, fresh tenders was issued in whioh the tendcrs were invited only from the manufacturers and not from the authorized dealers/agents, thcrefore, the petitioner has prayed that fresh notice inviting tender dated 27.2.2005 be quashed and respondents be directed to accept the petitioner s tender. 3. Return has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been mentioned that the secoad notioe inviting tender was issued on 27.2.2005 and after opening the tender document the tender of M/s Intervet India Pvt, Ltd., Pune was accepted on 18.3.2005 and the same being a manufacturcr ofvaccines and found lc»west & fittest that is why the contract has been awardcd to the said firm on 17,5.2005, even the supply of vaccines has also started. It has further been mentioned that the tender of the petitioner was rejected on two grounds; firstly, that in the tender form instead of nientioning that security aniount shall be deposited by way of bank draft it was mentioned that security amount shall be deposited by way of term deposit and secondly, that in the notice inviting tender thcre was no mention regarding purchase of vaccines and the second notice invlting tender was invited only from the ruanufactures in order to ensure the uninterrupted & regular supply of the vaccines. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per terms 8s conditions of notice inviting tender security amount was required to deposit through 'term deposit' and the petitioner had complied with that condition, therefore, the respondents ought not to have rejected the petitioner's tender on that ground. He further argued that it is wrong to say that there was no mention regarding purchase of vaccines in the earlier notice invitiag tender. He further submitted that in the circumstances, the impugned order cancelling the teader of petitioner be quashed and respondents be directed to place the order with the petitioner for purchase ofvaccines. 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State argued that instead of raentioning in the tender form. that security amount shall be deposited by way of bank draft it was inentioned that security amount shall be deposited through term deposit and there was no mention regardlng purchase ofvacciaes, therefore, the pctitioner's tender was cancelled. He further argued that evcn otherwise this petition is not maintainable, for the reason that after issuing fresh notiee inviting tender the tender of M/s Intervet India Pvt. Ltd. has already been accepted and supply has also been commenced but the said firm has not beeu inade party in the writ petition, therefore, the writ petitioa is not maintainable. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I have perused the relevant documents. The settled law regarding exercising the power of judicial rcview in the contractual luatters is that the Court can exainine the aianner in. which the contract has toeen awarded, but merit cannot be looked into and where the action of authorlty is found to be arbitrary, irrational or biased or where the contract has not been awarded in a transparent, fair and open inanner, 8, If vre look into the facts of the present case, it is admitted position that the rates quotcd by the pctitioner were the lowest. As has been nientioned above, the respondents have rejected the petitioner's tender only on two grounds that by niistake the security deposit was advertised to be submitted in the form of term deposit instead of bank draft and that there was no mention in the notice inviting tender regardiag purchase of vaccines. But, I am of the considcred view that both the grounds taken t>y tfae respondents for rejecting the petitioner's tender were irrelevant and non-existent, for the reasons that the respondent No.2 himself issued notice invitiag tender and as per terms & conditions the petltioner was requircd to deposit the security amount in the form of term deposit and the petitioner complled with the same. Therefore, the respondeuts or Comxaittee was not within thcir right to reject the petitloner's tender on that grouad, rather the term deposit was more safe instead ofbaak draft, because the bank draft, as per banking practice, requires renewal frequently, whereas the terin deposit was for a longer term. As such there was no irregularity, which autborizes the respondeuts to reject the petitiouer's tender. The second ground taken by the respondents is also irrelevant and non-existent, as thc perusal of aotice inviting tender shows that Item No.6 was regardiag purchase ofvaccines. It is true that in the heading of notice inviting tender it was aientioned that instruments & equipinents, chemicals, diagnostic kits, sample collection ware, furniture & other itenis, but at the last it was mentioned 'and other items' and then the details of those items were published from Item No.l to 6 and Item No.6 was regarding vaccines. Therefore, there was sufficient indication in the xiotice inviting tender regarding purchase of vaccines and respondents have arbitrarily, in an irrational manner and without application of mind rcjected the earlier tender on the ground that there was no nieation of purchase of vaccines. When thc respondeats had issued notice inviting tcnder and iii response to tbat the petitioner's ratcs were found to be lowest, then in all fairness, as a matter of public policy, the respondents ought tp have accepted the petitioner's tender but they have rejected the same on the non-existent grounds in an arbitrary mauner. 9. Now coming to the second pointraised by learned counsel for the respondents that fresh notice in^rttiag tender was issued and in response to that bid ^>f M/ s Intervet India Pvt. Ltd., Pune was found to be the lowest and bcing the manufacturer of vaccines the teuder of said firm was accepted on 18.3.2005 ^.nd even orders for purchase of vaccincs have already Been placed with that firin on 17,5.2005, but the said firm has not been made party to this petition, therefore, without making the said firin party to the petition, the iuipugned order cannot be quashed. The point raised by learned counsel for the respondents is valld, as the M/s Intervet India Pvt. Ltd,, in whose favor the right has been created by accepting his tender and placing the orders for purchase of vaccines, has not been made party in this case, therefore, without giving opportunity of hearing to that party quashing the contract executed in favour of that party will not be justified. By now almost three months have expired after the orders for purchase was placed with that firm and as has been argued by lcarned counsel for the respondents that even supply has also been started, therefore, for the above reasons, I am of the considcred opinion that at this stage without making that firm party quashing ofcontract will not be justified in any manner. 10. In the result, the writ petition is Uable to be dismiissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- L.C.^Btiadoo Judge Roshan/-