IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.13708 of 2009 Date of decision: 3.9.2009 Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. -----Petitioner Vs. Union of India & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. A.R. Takkar, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of tender process for the work of handling and transportation and order dated 29.7.2009, rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 2. In pursuance of tenders floated by the Food Corporation of India dated 7.2.2009, the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 gave their bids. After applying the eligibility criteria, technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. 3. The petitioner filed CWP No.8566 of 2009 and having regard to the fact that report of the Expert Committee, on the basis of which technical bid of the petitioner was rejected, had not been furnished to the petitioner, direction was issued to give opportunity to the petitioner to put forward its view point against CWP No.13708 of 2009 the findings of the Expert Committee before the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India. 4. In view of order of this Court dated 2.7.2009, the petitioner was provided an opportunity and order dated 29.7.2009 has been passed. It was, inter-alia, observed:- “That the other contention of the petitioner M/s Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd., Hisar, is that he possesses the relevant experience as per the tender terms. The tender terms stipulate experience of food-grains/fertilizers/cement or similar products to be considered for technical evaluation. Regional technical evaluation committee has found that the experience with the Reliance Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & GAIL (India) Ltd. is relating to transportation of polymers, which is not as per tender requirement. Further, in case of Vedanta Alumina Ltd. mechanized loading is being followed, whereas FCI handling operation is labour oriented and needs skilled manual handling and loading and hence such experience of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner submitted experience certificate in case of KRIHBCO only to the tune of Rs.5.58 crores for the period 01.07.05 to 30.06.2006, whereas as per tender terms, experience for the last three years was to be considered from 1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2009. Thus, the proportionate performance for the valid period for KRIBHCO is reported to be Rs.1.40 crores. The petitioner also submitted work order from KRIBHCO, but in the absence of experience certificate from the said company, the same cannot be considered. As regards his experience with 2 CWP No.13708 of 2009 Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., the petitioner enclosed the copy of letter of acceptance of tender only, which cannot be considered. The certificate produced by the petitioner alongwith his representation to evidence his experience with Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. cannot be considered at this stage. On the contrary, the experience of the individual partners of M/s Radha Soami Guru Kripa Logistic Co., Hisar has been considered in conformity with the tender terms. Since 15 partners out of 16 of M/s Radha Soami Guru Kripa Logistic Co. had the relevant experience of H&T, hence they have been awarded proportionate 14 marks. I do not find any discrepancy in the findings of the Regional technical evaluation committee.” 5. Apart from holding the petitioner to be ineligible for want of experience, other issues of evaluation of the petitioner and respondent No.5 who was the other tenderer, were duly considered. 6. After duly considering the view point of the petitioner, the highest authority of the Food Corporation of India has rejected the prayer of the petitioner and held its technical bid not to be as per tender conditions. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that decision rejected the representation of the petitioner and accepting the bid of respondent No.5 should be set aside. 8. This contention cannot be accepted. This Court, while exercising power of judicial review, does not sit in appeal 3 CWP No.13708 of 2009 over a decision taken after due evaluation by an administrative authority, unless such decision is irrational or perverse. The order of highest authority of the Corporation based on reasons is not liable to be quashed merely because another view may be possible. 9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the award of contract to respondent No.5 and rejection of technical bid of the petitioner. 10. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 03, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 4