- (1.) What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the acceptance by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh (for short, the Corporation) of the tender of respondent 4 for transport contract at Kotkapura for transporting food grains to its various depots and places.
(2.) By a notification issued in the first week of February, 1994, the Corporation invited sealed tenders from transport contractors for transporting foodgrains to and from its various food storage depots including Kotkapura. The tenders were required to be submitted by February 18, 1994 by 2.30 p.m. Petitioner No. 1 which claims to be a union of the truck operators at Kotkapura had submitted its tender through Shri Yog Raj, its President. In addition to the petitioner-Union, there were two other tenderers, namely one Gurbaj Singh and Bhajan Lal respondent No. 4. The rates quoted by the three tenderers were as under : (i) Truck Operator's union 379% above the prescribed rate (ii) Gurbaj Singh 331% above the prescribed rate (iii) Bhajan Lal (respondent 4) 405% above the prescribed rate Shri Gurbaj Singh and the union through Shri Yog Raj withdrew their tenders and informed the Corporation accordingly. There was only one tenderer left in the field and that was Shri Bhajan Lal of M/s. Chander Trading Company (respondent 4). The Corporation called him for negotiations and reduced the rate from 405% to 300% above the prescribed rate. His tender was accepted at the reduced rate and he has since started executing the transport contract pertaining to the Kotkapura depot.
(3.) The present petition has been filed by the New Kotkapura Truck Operators' Union through Shri Kala Ram, its President and two others challenging the award of the contract to respondent No. 4. It is alleged that original tender was submitted on behalf of the union when Shri Yog Raj was its President. It is further alleged that due to some disputes between the truck operators of Kotkapura fresh elections of the union were held and Kala Ram became its President and, therefore, Yog Raj through whom original tender had been filed had no authority in law to withdraw the tender on behalf of the petitioner-union. The plea of the petitioners is that the Corporation had been informed about the new election and, therefore, it should not have allowed the withdrawal of the tender application by Shri Yog Raj. The grievance of petitioner 1 as gathered from the averments made in the petition is that its claim has not been considered by the Corporation and, therefore, the grant of the contract to respondent 4 deserves to be set aside and the prayer made is that a direction be issued to the Corporation to reconsider the matter after taking into consideration the original tender as submitted by the union. The only grievance made by petitioners 2 and 3 is that when the Corporation decided to have further negotiations with respondent No. 4, it should have invited them as well for those negotiations and that they are willing to offer lower rate than respondent No. 4.;