- (1.) The petitioner which is a partnership concern has filed the present writ petition through its partner Mahavir Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the letter dated 26.3.2012(Annexure P-11) whereby the respondent Corporation had invited three other transport companies in reference to their transport bids relating to Moga centre. The said bids were to be opened in the Regional Office at Chandigarh on 28.3.2012 at 2.30 PM.
(2.) The grouse of the petitioner in short is that two days earlier i.e. on 24.3.2012 (Annexure P-10), the Corporation had intimated the petitioner that the transport contract relating to the Moga centre of the petitioner and the other three transporters had been kept open and extended for a period of 30 days beyond 29.3.2012 and, thus, it was arbitrarily excluded vide communication dated 26.3.2012. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has considerable experience at hand regarding 'Transport' as well as 'Handling and Transport' contract of food grains for various procuring agencies including Food Corporation of India and had successfully executed the aforesaid contract and there was no complaint whatsoever. One such contract was executed successfully by the petitioner for the period 2007-2009 relating to FSD, Dhuri and the petitioner was duly refunded the security deposited by him on account of successful completion of the contract. The said contract was got executed by Mahavir Singh through Gurbax Singh, his attorney, according to the rules and regulations of the respondent. Accordingly, it was pleaded that subsequently in the year 2009, the petitioner's attorney Gurbax Singh participated in tender enquiry relating to appointment of the transport contractor for Moga centre and was disqualified in the technical bid on a frivolous ground that the power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of Gurbax Singh for execution of contract of Dhuri Centre is fake being executed on stamp paper of Rs.10/- which was supposed to be executed on a stamp paper of Rs.300/-. Support was placed on show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 2.8.2010 wherein the Corporation had sought debarring of the petitioner from carrying out business dealing with the Corporation. Reference was also made to the certificate issued by the Corporation regarding the satisfactory execution of the transport contract for Dhuri dated 3.8.2010 done by Mahavir Singh (partner of the petitioner firm). Allegations were made against Chaudhary Transport Company, which has now been impleaded on its application as respondent no.2. At the instance of the said company, the bid of the petitioner's attorney Gurbax Singh for Moga centre for the period 2009- 2011 was rejected but the said action was never agitated by the petitioner either departmentally or legally.
(3.) The respondent Corporation had floated a tender enquiry dated 14.2.2012 for transport contract for Moga and Nabha centres for the period 2012-2014 and the petitioner had participated as tenderer for the aforesaid contract and respondent no.2 had submitted an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 for raking up the issue of the power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of Gurbax Singh and, therefore, petitioner had reasonable apprehension that he would be disqualified as a tenderer, therefore, he would have hardly any time left to knock the doors of the Court. Further allegations were made regarding execution of a contract for the respondent for Nabha centre for the period 2009-2011 to allege that the respondent Corporation was making enquiry and were likely to debar the petitioner from bidding in the tender on the ground that payment had not been made under the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No.4138 of 2012 taking the plea that its tender bid was likely to be rejected which was disposed of on 6.3.2012 as premature on the ground that there was no cause of action. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation dated 15.3.2012 requesting the Corporation that if any discrepancy was in its documents regarding the tender which it had submitted for Moga centre, on 14.2.2012, it should be given an opportunity in writing so that it may remove the deficiency forthwith. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that on 24.3.2012, it had been informed that the validity of his tender had been extended for the purpose of consideration and subsequently, it has been excluded vide communication dated 26.3.2012. A coordinate Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion had directed that the petitioner will be allowed to participate in the tender process and proceedings of the committee shall not be finalised. The decision regarding the petitioner shall be produced in a sealed cover before the Court on the next date of hearing.;