Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jai Pal And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 December, 2023

Author: Ritu Bahri

Bench: Ritu Bahri

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160731-DB




              2023:PHHC:160731-DB                    Page 1 of 4

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

111                                                    CWP-21753-2023(O&M)
                                                       Date of order: 14.12.2023
Jai Pal & Another
                                                                    .....Petitioner(s)
                                          Vs.
State of Haryana & Others
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

CORAM:                HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI, ACTING CHIEF
                      JUSTICE

                      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-             Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate
                      for the petitioners.

                      Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG Haryana.

                      *****
Nidhi Gupta, J.

Prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned auction/bid of lifting of agricultural produce residue/garbage/waste segregated in the grain market of Market Committee Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra accepted by respondent No.2 vide impugned letter dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P4), as the said auction/bid is on lowest side Rs.67,30,000/- in favour of respondent No.5 whereas the petitioner has taken the last year bid @ Rs.1,01,50,000/- and has offered minimum Rs.85,00,000/- starting bid for this year.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the sole proprietor of petitioner No.2 firm. Petitioner No.1 is a contractor who lifts agricultural produce residue/garbage/waste segregated in the grain market. It is contended that for the last year i.e. 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 21:29:23 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160731-DB 2023:PHHC:160731-DB Page 2 of 4 2022-2023 the petitioner had given the highest bid of Rs.1,01,50,000/- (Annexure P1), to the respondent-Market Committee, Shahbad Markanda for the lifting of agricultural produce waste from the Grain Market. It is submitted that for the present year 2023-2024, the petitioner had offered minimum bid starting from Rs.85,00,000/-, however, the contract has been awarded to respondent No.5 for a meagre amount of Rs.67,30,000/- only. Learned counsel argues that in view of the fact that the petitioner was already working in the previous year for highest bid of Rs.1,01,50,000/-; and had offered minimum bid of Rs.85,00,000/- for the present year, therefore, the award of contract to respondent No.5 for a meagre amount of Rs.67,30,000/- by respondent No.3 is an arbitrary and illegal action that deserves to be set aside. It is further contended that while awarding the contract to respondent no.5, the respondents No.3 and 4 have not adopted proper procedure and have given the contract of lifting agricultural garbage at lower price and therefore, the same needs to be set aside.

3. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioners.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Perusal of the record of the case reveals that the contract for lifting garbage from the Grain Market for the present year 2023-2024, was awarded by holding open auction on 24.07.2023 in Kisan Rest House, New Grain Market Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. On a direct Court query, learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that petitioner No.1 did not participate in the said auction on 24.07.2023; and had offered his 'highest bid' only vide letter dated 02.09.2023, after the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 21:29:24 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160731-DB 2023:PHHC:160731-DB Page 3 of 4 contract had already been sanctioned in the name of respondent No.5 vide letter No.633 dated 03.08.2023. It is further admitted that Tender bids were invited vide tender notice dated nil (Annexure P2) in pursuance to which respondent No.5 had admittedly participated in the auction process and being the highest bidder, was sanctioned the tender vide letter No.633 dated 03.08.2023; and subsequently, awarded the tender vide impugned letter dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P4).

6. It is settled position in law that once the petitioners have chosen not to participate in the tender process/auction, they cannot be awarded the same on the basis of an alleged highest bid offered subsequently by way of written application dated 02.09.2023. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon a three-Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in "National Highways Authority of India Vs. Gwalior Jhansi Expressway Limited" Law Finder Doc ID # 1098920, wherein it has been held as under:-

"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 17 and 37(2)(b) - Tender notice - Respondent's contract terminated for abandoning project - Appellant issued tender for balance work
- Respondent claimed right to match bid of L-1 and ROFR - Right of respondent to match bid of L-1 or to exercise ROFR to come into play only if respondent was to participate in tender process pursuant to notice inviting tenders - Wording of eligibility clause in tender made it explicit that respondent was required to participate in tender process by submitting its sealed bid - Having failed to participate in tender process and, more so, despite express terms in tender documents, validity whereof has not been challenged, respondent cannot be heard 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 21:29:24 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160731-DB 2023:PHHC:160731-DB Page 4 of 4 to contend that it had acquired any right whatsoever - Only entities who participate in tender process pursuant to tender notice can be allowed to make grievances about non-fulfilment or breach of any of terms and conditions - At culmination of tender process, if respondent had not participated, offer submitted by eligible bidders is required to be considered on basis of stated terms and conditions - If claim of respondent was to be strictly adjudged on basis of terms and conditions respondent has no case whatsoever."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to dispute the above noted factual and legal position. Present petition accordingly stands dismissed.

8. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

              (Ritu Bahri)                            (Nidhi Gupta)
             Acting Chief Justice                         Judge



14.12.2023
Sunena

      Whether speaking/reasoned                       Yes/No
      Whether reportable                              Yes/No




                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160731-DB

                                    4 of 4
               ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2023 21:29:24 :::