Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. - (1.) THE respondents floated a tender notice regarding work of transportation of foodgrains and labour/cartage/storage point/open plinths and P.E.G. Warehouses for purchase agencies of Punjab Government and FCI for the year 2014 -15 for Rabi and Kharif crops from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015. It is not in dispute that the tender as floated referred to the tender forms for a composite work. However, the petitioner submitted a tender only for the labour work.
(2.) THE petitioner filed CWP No. 7111 of 2014 making a grievance that the tenders which were opened on 25.3.2014 found the petitioner's tender most competitive for 7 out of 25 Mandies, but in respect of labour work. He claims that on approaching the respondents, he was informed to get permission from Director, PUNGRAIN while no such condition was imposed in the tender and, thus, served a legal notice dated 2.4.2014 on respondent No. 5 -District, Food & Supply Controller, Sangrur. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 11.4.2014 with a direction to examine the legal notice and to communicate a reasoned decision to the petitioner thereafter. The reasoned decision has thereafter been communicated as per Annexure P -5 in pursuance to the aforesaid directions. The relevant portion reads as under: - It was found that the petitioner was not eligible for the tender as he did not fulfil the requisite conditions of tender which is a part and parcel of Labour and Cartage policy. As per clause 5 of the policy, the single tender will be entertained for the work of labour and cartage. If separate tenders are to be entertained for the work of labour and cartage then it can only be done after obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner/Director Food and supply which is a mandatory condition as per clause 5 of the Labour and Cartage policy. However the tender applied by the petitioner was only for labour work. So as per clause 5 of the policy, the tender of the petitioner was not entertained as it lacks requisite requirement. However, the petitioner applied another tender for both labour and cartage for mandi Gehlan which was duly allotted to him as per policy. In view of the aforesaid facts, it was found that the petitioner was not eligible for the tender.
(3.) IT is the aforesaid decision which is now sought to be assailed in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;