- (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 10253 and 11827 of 2012 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the facts and issues involved therein are identical. For brevity, the facts are taken from CWP No. 10253 of 2012.
(2.) In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the action of the respondents in returning the tender form and rejecting the technical bids vide letters dated 19.5.2012 (Annexure P-14) and dated 23.5.2012 (Annexure P-15) while not taking into account the experience and qualifications of one of the Directors of the petitioner Company who in an individual capacity holds the necessary experience to meet the requirements of the respondents.
(3.) Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that petitioner No.1-company is in the business of logistics. Its authorized share capital is Rs. 1 lac divided into 10000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. There are only two shareholders of petitioner No.1 each holding 5000 equity shares and they are also the promoters, subscribers and the directors. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 2.2.2012 inviting sealed tender under the 'Two Bid System' (Technical and Price Bid) for the appointment of regular handling and transport contractors for loading/unloading/handling and transport of foodgrains and allied materials etc. for a period of two years at Food Corporation Depots/Godowns/Rail Heads etc. in various centres in different Districts in the State of Haryana. In pursuance thereto, petitioner No.1 submitted the tender form on 1.3.2012 along with earnest money (2% of the contract value) for 11 centres in District Hisar. The work experience certificates of petitioner No.2 were also submitted along with the tender form as the company was incorporated in the year 2012. The technical bid of the applicants was to be opened on the same day i.e. on 1.3.2012 whereas the price bid of the successful applicants was to be opened subsequently on a later date. On 24.4.2012, the certificate was obtained by the respondentCorporation from the certified firm of the company secretaries stating that the experience earned by the Director to be included while calculating experience of a company. Apprehending that the technical bids of petitioner No.1-company may be rejected on the ground of inexperience in the field of logistics as the same was established on 17.1.2012 and could not be considered to be holding the due amount of experience as required for handing of the contract, it executed an affidavit dated 25.4.2012 offering to give 10% additional Bank guarantee in lieu of lack of experience. On 15.5.2012, petitioner No.1 wrote a letter to the respondents extending the validity of its offer which was due to expire on 16.5.2012. Vide letters dated 19.5.2012 and 23.5.2012, the technical bids of petitioner No.1-company were rejected by the respondents on the ground of lack of requisite experience. Hence, the present writ petition.;