IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.8566 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 02 .7.2009 Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Limited -----Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others -----Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav GS Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. OP Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.K.Gupta and Ms. Anjana, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Mr.Anil Kshetrapal, Avocate for respondent No.5. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of allotment of tender for handling and transportation work to respondent No.5. 2. Case of the petitioner is that a tender was floated by respondent No.3 vide notice Annexure P.2 dated 7.2.2009 for appointment of regular contractor for handling and transportation for two years with a provision to extend the contract for further period of one year. Relevance for purposes of this petition is of CWP No.8566 of 2009 Hissar district, for which estimated value of the contract was Rs.34.40 crores. Eligibility criteria is contained in Clause 8 of the notice, which is as under:- Sr.No. Particulars Max.Point s Total points 1. Technical expertise 30 *Turnover in last three years *Experience in serving prestigious clients 15 15 2. Operational Presence and infrastructure 20 *Number of offices in State of operation *Number of trucks controlled 05 15 3, Financial Soundness 50 *Amount of Credit Limit sanctioned *Amount of solvency certificate *Strength of balance sheet *Strength of Profit and Loss account. *Immovable property 10 10 10 10 10 3. The petitioner applied for the tender with details of technical expertise and financial soundness certificate. Only other tenderer was respondent No.5 - M/s Radha Swami Guru Kirpa Logistics Company. According to the petitioner, technical bid was opened without intimation to him. Though, the petitioner was much better placed in the matter of technical expertise as per criteria laid down, having better financial capacity, experience and 2 CWP No.8566 of 2009 infrastructure throughout the State, including number of trucks, technical bid of the petitioner was rejected without intimating any reason. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 stated that rejection of technical bid was sought to be conveyed to the petitioner by sending a letter, the said letter was returned back. We have opened the letter in Court and we find that the said letter dated 28.5.2009 addressed to the petitioner states that the petitioner’s technical bid was not qualified but no reason is mentioned. After perusing the letter, we have returned the same to learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Grievance in the writ petition is that action of respondent No.2 shows collusion with respondent No.5 and it is in pursuance thereof that technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected. The District Level Committee comprising of four Managers found the petitioner to be qualified but an Expert Committee consisting of three AGMs did not accept the recommendation without intimation or any opportunity to the petitioner. 5. Case of the petitioner is that decision of the Expert Committee, which has been approved by the General Manager, respondent No.4, is malafide on account of extraneous influence and the said decision will result in eliminating competition and 3 CWP No.8566 of 2009 result in heavy loss to respondent No.2. There are various other averments in the petition. It is not necessary to refer all these averments. 6. In the reply filed by the Assistant General Manager (Contract) Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Haryana, Panchkula, purporting to be on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it has been stated, inter-alia, that on detailed appraisal of technical bids of the tenderers, the petitioner could not qualify. 7. The main issue which arises for consideration is whether the decision of the Expert Committee is rational and can be justified on the basis of material on record. 8. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner did not have access to the report of the Expert Committee, which has led to rejection of technical bid of the petitioner and having regard to the huge amount of public money involved, it will be appropriate that the petitioner is given an opportunity to put forward its view point to the reasons given by Expert Committee, to an authority higher than the authority which has taken the decision. 9. A copy of the report of the Expert Committee has been furnished today to the petitioner and the petitioner will be at liberty to put forward its view point to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD), Food Corporation of India, within one week from 4 CWP No.8566 of 2009 today. The CMD) may take final decision in the matter after considering the view point of the petitioner within two weeks. It will be appreciable if the CMD passes a reasoned order. Respondent No.3 may proceed with the matter after decision of the CMD and will be at liberty to make ad hoc arrangements till then, including by extending the existing tender. 10. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge July 2, 2009 (Daya Chaudhary) ‘gs’ Judge 5