Jaswant Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others




   
      !"!

#$ %& Date of Decision: 6th August, 2019 Jaswant Singh .....Petitioner versus Government of Punjab, through its Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab and others .....Respondents  %'  ()%

*
+
*%

,
  *
  ()%

 *


 ))
,  Present :

Mr. K.K.Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Lavanya Paul, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Tejinder Kataria, Advocate, for respondents No. 7 and 8.

**** +
*%

,
  *
 Aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting/cancelling the tender granted for transportation of food grains for certain clusters in District Ferozepur, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2.

Facts relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the controversy at hands in brief can be summarized as under:6 In response to an advertisement inviting on6line tenders for transportation of food grains for Rabi6Kharif seasons for the period 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 by the Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab, the petitioner was also one of the applicants. He submitted bids for clusters No. 5, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of District Ferozepur. His bid submitted was found to be technically responsive and on opening of the financial bid he was found to be L61 for clusters No. 5, 23 and 24.

CWP No. 12302 of 2019 2 3.

Private respondents No. 7 and 8 challenged the decision of the District Tender Committee to award tender to the petitioner by filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, namely, the Director, Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. Challenge to the tender awarded in favour of the petitioner was basically on the ground that he and another tenderer, namely, Ramandeep Singh submitted same list of trucks along with their bids which was against the policy and the terms and conditions of the NIT, hence the tender was liable to be revoked and they were subjected to further legal action including black listing. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.04.2019 rejected the appeal which was challenged by the contesting respondents by filing second appeal before respondent No.1 in accordance with clause614 of the policy. 4.

The Second Appellate Authority after hearing the parties and analyzing the facts and circumstances allowed the appeal, cancelled/rejected the tender awarded in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the following findings arrived at by him:6
  

  

      

                                        

          

        !   "   !  !    

 #    !

 

     

  

 

  

  



                  

  #   

      $     

  %      

      

        !   !

    !

       

    

   

 

CWP No. 12302 of 2019 3 

   # &  

      

 

# '

 () *+,-.*. ()+/0-0/ ,1234+3-.  ,1235*0+6 !          7  4!    

             

   

 

   !   

 84 

#  " 

    

   

#&          

  

 

      

                       !

  

 !        %     # 9

       

      

    #     

                    !   '

6      

          " #   

 

 

       



   !       #:

  $         !  

 

 

   4  $         



    

        $   &          # 

         #,   97  3;<       

 

   

    %8  

         

 

 # =         

     

!

     ;9 7<                 &>,4

 ,

  4  

4     $    ,

%  

    4         60       %8          4 ? !

4

 4 )  4



  

  

    

#

CWP No. 12302 of 2019 4 &  

#               



"  

       97 3             

 

#@ 5.

We have heard Shri K.K.Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Lavanya Paul, Assistant Advocate General for the State of Punjab and Shri Tejinder Kataria, learned counsel for respondents No. 7 and 8 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had submitted a list of trucks more than the capacity of trucks required as per clause V of the policy for transportation of food grains for the years 2019620 and even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that he had submitted wrong registration numbers of 20 trucks along with list of trucks even than all the terms and conditions being fulfilled he was eligible for awarding of the contract. It is also submitted that the appeal filed against the petitioner was by a black6listed contractor and thus the action is rendered illegal and without jurisdiction.

7.

Be that as it may the finding recorded by the Second Appellate Authority while directing cancellation/rejection of the tender of the petitioner is that he uploaded fake list of trucks which is in clear violation of the pre6requisite terms and conditions of the policy as well as the NIT and black listing of respondent No.7 will not entitle the petitioner to cover his wrong and will not absolve him from the liability of facing consequences of uploading a list of fake registration numbers of the vehicles to mislead the authorities.

CWP No. 12302 of 2019 5 8.

The illegal action of the petitioner was clearly in violation of Clause 56A of the policy for the transportation years 2019620 and thus he was ineligible for award of the contract and the same has rightly been cancelled/rejected by the Second Appellate Authority. 9.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Second Appellate Authority are either against the evidence or based on misreading of evidence and thus the same cannot be held to be vitiated for any reason. The petition is thus concluded by findings of fact recorded by the authority leaving no scope for interference in the impugned order. 10.

The petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed. (KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 6th August, 2019 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No