SANDHU TRAILERS Vs. ORISSA SMALL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a partnership firm carrying on transport business, seeks to assail the decision of opposite party No. 1 Corporation to award the work of transportation of industrial raw materials in favour of opposite party No. 2, and prays for commanding the said opposite party No. 1 Corporation lo award the work in question in its favour.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. I is a State owned Corporation. It issued a Notice inviting lenders from recognised and established transport carriers having branches preferably at Cullack, Bhubaneswar, Rourkela, Jatni, Calcutta and other places in the country for transportation of industrial raw materials such as Iron and Steel Materials, Bitumen (only inside the State). Aluminium Ingot, Aluminium Wire Rods, Paraffin Wax, Paper, Mineral Turpentine Oil, Plastics and Newsprint, and such other items dealt/to be dealt by the Corporation. The intending tenderers were required to enclose a Draft/Pay Order for Rs. 2,00,000.00 (two lakhs) to wards earnest money, drawn in favour of the opposite party No. 1 Corporation to take part in the tender. The last date of purchase of the tender documents was fixed as 11th July, 2003 and the last date of submission of tender was fixed as 14th July, 2003. The tender was divided into two parts, first is Pre qualification Bid and the second is. Price Bid. Only those tenderers who were found suitable in the Pre qualification Bid were required to submit their Price Bids. The instructions to tenderers specifically stipulated that the envelope marked No. 1, i.e. Pre qualification Bid, would contain among other particulars a list of trucks owned by the tenderer attaching a copy of the registration certificates in 'support of owning the vehicles'. For the sake of brevity, Clause A(iii)(f) of the instructions to tenderer is quoted hereinbelow:

(3.) ON receiving notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No. 1, It is averred that from the past experience of the Corporation it was found that the transporters having no truck of their own failed to execute the work in time for which the interest of the Corporation was substantially hampered. To avoid such eventuality, a decision had been taken to award the transportation work to a firm which owned at least five trucks. It is stated that admittedly the petitioner firm owned only one truck and intended to obtain six trucks on lease from others; whereas the opposite party No. 2 firm owned three trucks in the names of its two partners and had produced a power for attorney by one Smt. Puspalata Sahu, wife of Samir Sahu, one of the partners of the firm, authorising him to operate her two trucks and as such the Corporation considered opposite party No. 2 better and more suitable than the petitioner, which owned only one truck and intended to take four other trucks on lease. It is further submitted that the decision of the Corporation was taken after considering all the tenders received and strictly on the basis of merit, and not by showing favour to anybody as alleged by the petitioner,