- (1.) IN this writ petition Petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the Tender Notice dated 1.7.2003 published in the newspaper "Hindustan" dated 5.7.2003 by which tenders have been invited by the respondents for transportation of coal from various project/mines unit of Kuju Area, Hazaribagh area of Central Coalfields Limited to any point of unloading as per direction of the Area Management for a period of one year and also inviting tender for transportation of clean coal/power coal from Kedla Washery to Chainpur siding and loading the same into Railway Wagons.
(2.) PETITIONER 'scompany is engaged in coal transportation and said to have vast experience in executing several tender for contract works which were awarded to it time to time. Petitioner 's case is that on 14.2.2002 respondents invited a similar tender for transportation of coal and washery products from various project for a period of 2 years. Respondents also fixed certain terms and conditions in the notice inviting tender and one of the clause was that tenderer must have minimum experience of transportation satisfactorily for a quantity of 1.5 lakhs tonnes and for a value of Rs. 8 lacs for a period of 12 consecutive months during the last three years. Petitioner alleged that in order to fulfill the conditions of the tender notice it hired required equipments such as 22 Tipping trucks from the market for two years and also fulfilled other terms and conditions. Petitioner having fulfilled all the requirements, its tender was accepted and was called to participate in the negotiation. After several negotiations, the work order/ letter of intent was issued and the contract was awarded for a period of 2 years as per the Tender Notice and the work was commenced from 1.8.2002. Petitioner 'sfurther case is that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the concerned respondent in pursuance to tender notice. In the said agreement it was mentioned that the agreement was for 12 and 6 months respectively and subject to extension after assessing satisfactory performance of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that although performance of the company was satisfactory, respondents during the subsistence of the work and before the contract period of 2 years advertised and published another tender notice dated 1.7.2003 by which tenders have been invited for transportation of coal from various projects/ mines of Kuju area/Hazaribagh area of C.C.Ltd. It is therefore contended by the petitioner that by the said tender notice respondents purported to give contract of the same work which has already been awarded to the petitioner. Petitioner therefore contended that subsequent tender notice is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and malafide and against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the respondents have no right to issue fresh tender notice and to award the same contract which has already been awarded to the petitioner for a period of 2 years. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit wherein it is stated that petitioner was fully aware that period of contract was for one year which was intimated to the petitioner by letter dated 8.10.2002 giving reference of the sanction letter dated 31.7.2002 in which it was expressly mentioned that period of contract was from 1.8.2002 to 31.7.2003, i.e., one year. Respondents ' further case is that petitioner by letter dated 14.1.2003 had requested the respondents for extension of period and in the said letter petitioner had subsequently prayed that period of contract should be extended up to 31.7.2003 as per the sanction letter dated 31.7.2002. According to the respondents although in the notice inviting tender the contract was shown to be for a period of 2 years but sanction for only one year was accorded and agreement to that effect was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents. Respondents have therefore every right to issue fresh tender notice after the expiry of the period of one year inasmuch as petitioner was allotted work by an agreement for a period of one year.
(3.) MR . Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned tender notice dated 1.7.2003 as being illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that respondents have no right or jurisdiction to issue fresh tender notice inviting tender even without cancelling the earlier tender notice and the agreement and without following the settled principles of law. Learned counsel firstly drawn my attention to Annexure -! which is tender notice dated 14.2.2002 by which tenders were invited for transporta tion of coal and washery products for a period of 2 years. Petitioner 'stender was accepted and the petitioner was called upon for negotiation by letter -dated 12.4.2002 which is evident from Annexure -3 to the writ application. Learned counsel submitted that letter of intent was issued by the respondents and on the basis of which petitioner commenced work from 1.8.2002. It is only thereafter an agreement was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents on 27.11.2002. Learned counsel therefore submitted that as a matter of fact contract was awarded to the petitioner for transportation of coal for a period of 2 years in terms of the tender notice and therefore action of the respondents in inviting fresh tender for the same work amount to taking away valuable right of the petitioner who is entitled to continue to his contract in pursuance of Annexure -I to tender notice.;