Punjab-Haryana High Court
Didar Masih And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 16 July, 2008
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 12048 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 16.07.2008
Didar Masih and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
Union of India and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioners, who are owners of one truck-tank each, have filed the present petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of clause 11 (a) of the terms and conditions of Tender (Annexure P-12), issued by respondent No.1 for the purposes of inviting tender for the road transportation of Bulk Petroleum Products for 2008-2011.
Clause 11 (a) of the terms and conditions of Tender in question provides that the tenderer should offer minimum five number of tank trucks for Ambala Terminal, out of which minimum two tank trucks should be owned by the tenderer in his name and additional tank trucks offered may be owned or attached.
CWP No. 12048 of 2008 -2-
The contention of the petitioners is that as per the earlier terms and conditions (Annexure P-9) for 2005-2007, the tenderer was required to own at least one tank truck in his name. In the new terms and conditions, this condition has been changed, which according to the petitioners has illegally deprived them from earning their livelihood. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid clause in the tender is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, as the aforesaid clause has imposed an unreasonable restriction over the right of the petitioners to choose their own employment or to take up any trade or business. Since the petitioners are owning only one tank truck each, therefore, they are not eligible to apply for the aforesaid tender. It is the further case of the petitioners that the aforesaid condition imposed by the respondents cannot be said to be in public interest, as by the said condition, no objection is going to be achieved.
After hearing counsel for the petitioners and going through the contents of the petition, we do not find any merit in this petition.
Undisputedly, vide Annexure P-12, tenders were invited for the road transportation of Bulk Petroleum Products for 2008-2011. Keeping in view the nature of the transaction, the respondent Corporation has required that the tenderer must own at least two tank trucks. In our opinion, this decision taken by the respondent Corporation for giving the tender to a person owning at least two tank trucks cannot be said to be unreasonable. The aforesaid condition imposed by the respondent Corporation, while CWP No. 12048 of 2008 -3- inviting the tenders, also cannot be said to be violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The condition imposed by the respondent Corporation cannot be said to be unreasonable and the same falls under reasonable restriction on the exercise of rights conferred by this sub clause. Undisputedly, the aforesaid condition is not in violation of any existing law. Even it is not the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid condition has been imposed by the respondent Corporation with some ulterior or malafide motive or for extraneous consideration. In view of these facts, we do not find any ground to quash clause 11 (a) of the terms and conditions of Tender (Annexure P-12).
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
July 16, 2008 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
ndj JUDGE