Decided on May 18,1999

Unique Motor Transport Appellant


ARUN KUMAR GOEL J. - (1.) HEARD Learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this writ petition is admitted for final hearing and keeping in view the controversy involved in it. It is being disposed of.
(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 floated tender notice vide Annexure "A" dated 15th March 99. By means of this notice sealed tenders were invited from reputed and registered transport contractors for supply of Trucks, which were required by the J&K State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) for deployment to various intending agencies in the following sectors for the year 1999 -2000 on the terms detailed in the said tender notice. Å ''1. Pathankot to all stations in Kashmir province. 2. All stations in Jammu province to all stations in Kashmir Valley. 3. Pathankot to Kargil. 4. Pathankot to Leh. 5. Pathankot to all stations in Jammu province. 6. Leh to Pathankot. 7. Kargil to Pathankot. 8. Jammu to Leh. 9. Jammu to Kargil. 10. Leh to Jammu. 11. Kargil to Jammu. 12. Srinagar to Leh. 13. Srinagar to Kargil. 14. Leh to Srinagar. 15. Kargil to Srinagar. 16. All stations in Kashmir Valley upto all stations in Jammu province. 17. All stations in Kashmir Valley to outside J&K State. 18. Srinagar to Drass. 19. All stations in Jammu province to outside J&K State. 20. Local routes in Kashmir Valley. 21. Local routes in Jammu province. Clause 3 of this tender notice was in the following terms: Å ''3. The tender should be accompanied by a CDR for Rs. 5.00 Lakhs only pledged to the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer JKSRTC as earnest money. The Call Deposit Receipt shall be treated as Security deposit in the case of successful tenderer and shall be released only after successful completion of the contract. The CDR shall be released in the case of all un -successful tenderers immediately tenderers. Any tender which is not accompanied by the CDR of the prescribed amount shall be rejected.
(3.) WHOLE case of the petitioner is that since the tender submitted by respondent No. 3 was not accompanied by the Call Deposit Receipt (CDR), as such his tender being incomplete, not fulfilling the requisite condition in that behalf, therefore it was liable to be rejected and in fact should have been rejected by respondents 1 and 2. Instead of following Clause 3 (supra) in its letter and spirit, respondents 1 and 2 on the contrary have allowed respondent No. 3 to participate in the tender as also having opened the same in the presence of petitioner, respondent No. 3 and other tenderers who had submitted their tenders. It may be noted here that respondent No. 3 preferred a suit in the Court of learned Sub -Judge Judicial Magistrate (Forest), Srinagar, wherein interim order dated 6th April 99 was passed in the following terms: Å ''Having regard to the pleadings of the Plaintiff and having regard to the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner before me I am satisfied that the plaintiff has raised a triable case and balance of convenience presently is in favour of the petitioner. Hence till the non -applicants appeared and filed their objections, they are directed to consider the tender document forms of the applicant alongwith other eligible contractors treating the amount of Rs. 8.00 Lakhs as security for the said works i.e. for NIT No. JKSRTC/ OPS/L -93/CJ/9152 dated 15 -03 -1999 and JKSRTC/OPS/IIO/CJ/9153 dated 15 -03 -1999 out of the 14.00 Lakhs lying outstanding with the defendants Corporation. In case any payment on account of the outstanding is to be made to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 8.00 Lakhs shall be with -held as a Security of the aforesaid incidental works. The non -applicants are further at liberty to approach this Court to seek modification or alteration/reversal of this Court order in case they choose to do so before the next date of hearing. The application be put up for further orders on 23 -04 -1999. During the course of hearing of this petition Shri Pant appearing for respondent No. 3 argued that even by exclusing the exparte interim order of Sub -Judge Court at Srinagar, he is still in a position to oppose and pray for dismissal of the writ petition and also urged that the tender notice submitted by his client was in terms in accordance with the letter and spirit of the object that was sought to be achieved by asking every tenderer to furnish a CDR along with the tender.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.