CWP No. 747 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 747 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.01.2010 Shri Balaji Transport Co. ....Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing orders dated 29.5.2009 Annexure P-7, 15.6.2009 Annexure P-9, 22.10.2009 Annexure P-11 and 17.12.2009 Annexure P-13, whereby the petitioner’s firm was not considered for opening of the price bid after considering technical bid and thereafter rejected the petitioner’s representation. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.1 invited tenders vide Annexure P-3 for appointment of a regular contractor for handling and transportation for a period of two years. The petitioner submitted his tender. However, the petitioner could not receive any CWP No. 747 of 2010 2 information whether he was considered for technical bid or not, nor the petitioner received any information whether his tender was opened for price bid or not. 3. The petitioner received information of the contract finalizing in favour of respondent No.3 against tender notice Annexure P-3 vide order dated 15.6.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know vide order dated 25.9.2009 that its technical bid was rejected by respondent No.3. Having received the aforesaid information, the petitioner filed CWP No.9969 of 2009, which was permitted to be withdrawn without prejudice to any fresh petition being filed having observed “before moving such petition, it would have been appropriate if the petitioner had atleast approached the appropriate authority with its grievance”. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation on 27.7.2009, which was decided by the General Manager vide order dated 22.10.2009. The petitioner again approached this Court by way of CWP No.17468 of 2009, challenging order dated 22.10.2009. This Court vide order dated 13.11.2009 disposed of the writ petition with the direction to respondent No.2 to look into the matter if a representation is made by the petitioner within one week and take a decision by passing a speaking order, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. The petitioner again filed representation Annexure P-12, which was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 17.12.2009. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Order dated 17.12.2009 Annexure P-13 reveals that the Tender Evaluation Committee found that the petitioner did not disclose the basic information necessary for technical evaluation such as he was ever CWP No. 747 of 2010 3 blacklisted by FCI or any other public Sector/Govt. organization, if earlier contract of the tender was terminated and EMD forfeited, if any penalties were imposed, whose value exceeded 10% of the value of the contract by FCI during any previous/existing contracts etc. It has also been observed by respondent No.2 while rejecting the representation of the petitioner that it is not for the first time when the tender of the firm where Kulbir Singh was the partner, has been rejected. This Court in CWP No.9560 of 2002 filed by M/s. Kulbir Singh and Co. challenging the rejection of his tender in the year 2002-04, upheld the decision of the Corporation on the ground of concealment of material facts as well as poor performance of the tenderer in the past. The Tender Evaluation Committee of RO, Haryana, as is evident from the records, also took into consideration the above decision of this Court. 7. Having perused the impugned orders, we are of the firm opinion that the corporation was well within its jurisdiction to reject the tender of the applicant on the ground of concealment of the facts required to be disclosed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the correctness of the finding recorded in the impugned orders that the petitioner has not supplied full and correct information. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that civil suit filed by the petitioner against recovery of the penalty has been decreed vide order dated 10.11.2009. However, it is clear from the perusal of the record that at the time of the evaluation and finalization of the tender, there was no decree in favour of the petitioner and in the tender document, the petitioner neither disclosed the imposition of the penalty nor the pendency of the civil suit in respect of the earlier contract. CWP No. 747 of 2010 4 8. While exercising jurisdiction under Artile 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not supposed to enter into the disputed questions of fact. 9. We find no force in the present petition and the same is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 18.01.2010 sk.