Chattisgarh High Court
Chandan Trading Company vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 May, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 2430 of 2022
Chandan Trading Company, A private Limited Company, registered under the relevant
provision of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at BMS House, Moti
Talab Para, Jagdalpur, Branch Office at Village Bana, Block Dharsiwa, Chhattisgarh
Through its Director namely Pankaj Somani, S/o Late Shantilal Somani, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Swarnabhoomi Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Commerce and Industry Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
2. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through its Managing Director,
Block No. 7A, 2nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Block No.
7A, 2nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
4. Executive Director, (Finance) Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,
Block No. 7A, 2nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
----Respondents
26/05/2022 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.1. Shri V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Syed Majid Ali, Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
Heard on the petition and on the application for grant of interim relief. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that a Notice Inviting Tender (in short 'the NIT') was issued on 07-02-2022. The petitioner submitted his bid for supply of chickpea (Chana) and which was lowest. Subsequent to which, the petitioner was called by the respondent authorities for negotiation and the price was negotiated accordingly. In later on development a circular/notification regarding amendment of provision of Chhattisgarh Government Store Purchase Rules, 2002 (in short 'the Rules, 2002') dated 09-05-2022 was issued, amending the provisions of the Rules, 2002, according to which there is requirement of submission of at least three bids. It is submitted that these amended Rules do not have retrospective effects, however, it was on the basis of this notification dated 09-05-2022, the NIT was cancelled by the impugned order dated 20-05-2022 mentioning that in the bid process only two parties have submitted their bids.
It is submitted that the price quoted by the petitioner has been disclosed. The respondents have issued a fresh Notice Inviting Tender, therefore, prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if this NIT process is allowed to be continued. It is also submitted that there is clause for Arbitration present in the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender. However, the petitioner has not received any such time to approach for arbitration, as the Notice Inviting Tender has been issued immediately after rejection of the previous NIT.
On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Mehar Din, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 250, on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in the case of Subu Tachang and others Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, (2017) 4 GAUHATI LAW REPORTS 154 and on the judgment of High Court of M.P. in the case of Alok Kumar Choubey Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2021 (1) M.P.L.J. 348. Prayer has been made to stay the fresh NIT dated 20-05-2022.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission and it is submitted, that the impugned order has been lawfully passed. The rule of submission of bids for at least three parties is present in the Rules, 2002, regarding which there is notification dated 01-09-2020 by which the amendment was included. Therefore, it is not a case that this amendment was brought subsequent to the first NIT issued and in any NIT process in which there are bidders less than three, the same stands cancelled. Hence, the petitioner has no entitlement for grant of interim relief.
In reply it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order does not mention of notification dated 01-09-2020, it mentions about notification dated 09-05-2022. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for interim relief.
Considered on the submissions. Rule 4.3.3 of Rules, 2002 is very clear and it is mentioned in the proviso that in the matter of calling of bids under NIT, there is requirement of submission of at least three bids from the parties, without which the proceeding shall not be complete. This rule has been inserted by notification dated 01-09-2020, copy of the notification dated 01-09-2020 and notification dated 09-05- 2022 both have submitted by respondents side for perusal of this Court and after perusal of the same, it appears to be difficult to hold at this stage that the impugned order is unlawful, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim relief is rejected.
This case be listed after four weeks.
In the meanwhile, the respondent side may file reply.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Vacation Judge Aadil