IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.11121 of 2007 Date of decision: 26.8.2008 Bhajan Lal. -----Petitioner Vs. Food Corporation of India and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Mohan Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikram Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4. ----- ORDER: This petition seeks quashing of allotment of transportation work to respondent No.4 without re-tendering and for a direction to finalise the re-tender as per Annexure P-6. Case of the petitioner is that tender was floated for the work of transportation. Therein, the petitioner, respondent No.4 and others gave their quotations. Though the lowest tender was of one Hussan Lal, who withdrew his tender, the second lowest being of CWP. No.11121 of 2007 respondent No.4, he was given the work. At one stage, decision to re-tender was taken, but respondent No.4 challenged the same and stay was granted and thereafter, the decision to re-tender was cancelled. In the process of re-tender, the petitioner quoted substantially lower rates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Central Vigilance Commission Guidelines Annexures P-4 and P-5, inter-alia, envisaging that post-tender negotiations except with L1 (lowest tenderer) should be avoided and in case of L1 backing out, re-tendering should be resorted. Learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India states that though re-tendering was resorted to, taking a practical view stay having been granted against re-tendering, process was cancelled and now substantial period has already expired and re-tendering is not practicable. The Food Corporation of India has also not entered into any negotiation and has given the contract to the second lowest bidder. We are unable to hold that reasons for the decision, of the Food Corporation of India, are irrational or arbitrary. Thus, we do not find any ground for interference with the awarding of contract in favour of respondent No.4 and with the order of canceling the re-tendering process. However, on a suggestion of learned counsel for the petitioner, we direct Chairman, Food Corporation of India to ask a Committee, already constituted or which may be constituted, to examine the question whether Central Vigilance Commission guidelines 2 CWP. No.11121 of 2007 as far as may be practicable, be followed by the Food Corporation of India, with such modifications as may be considered appropriate. The petition is disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE August 26, 2008 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashwani JUDGE 3