M/S Global Facilities v. State Of Punjab & ORS
Gurbax Singh 2017.12.20 10:02 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26433 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.11.2017 M/s Global Facilities ......Petitioner Vs.
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for Mr. U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondent-caveator.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.
1.
The petitioner through the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing the order dated 10.11.2017, Annexure P.22 alongwith the communication dated 15.9.2017, Annexure P.18 vide which contract for providing house keeping and security services has been awarded to private respondent No.5-M/s Friend Associates. Further prayer has been made for staying the operation of the impugned order and the letter during the pendency of the petition and in the alternative, for staying the functioning of respondent No.5. 2.
A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It came into existence in the name of M/s Global Facilities situated at H.No.272, V&PO Landran, Tehsil and District Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab. The business of the firm is to provide facilities/utilities
and house keeping services. It has been providing these facilities to the respondents since long. Previously, the contract was awarded to the petitioner firm by the respondents in the year 2014 which expired on 15.9.2017. According to the petitioner, due to malafide intention of the Chairman, the contract was earlier cancelled vide letter dated 4.9.2015. The petitioner approached this court through CWP No.6965 of 2016. Vide order dated 16.8.2017, this court disposed of the writ petition and the contract was allowed to be continued upto three years i.e. 15.9.2017. Now again, the respondent Board floated the contract for the same purpose for the period from 16.9.2017 to 31.3.2018.
The Central Vigilance Commission had already issued the guidelines that the terms and conditions of the tender notice coupled with form appended thereunder were required to be mandatorily filled up. One of the conditions was with regard to the fact that the information was to be submitted in excel file and certain terms and conditions were required to be completed which showed that the latest challan of deposit of EPF, ESI and GST was required to be submitted. The petitioner uploaded the requisite form and submitted the same on 12.9.2017 alongwith all the required information. In the form submitted by respondent No.5, against the deposit of EPF, ESI and GST, it was mentioned as 'Yes'. The technical as well as financial bid was to be opened on 13.9.2017.
Despite submitting all the documents, the petitioner was asked to submit the affidavit which it did. According to the petitioner, although respondent No.5 did not submit the copy of latest challan for deposit of EPF, ESI and GST, it was treated as qualified. The petitioner asserts that as per terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender, a committee is required to be constituted who shall first hold pre-bid meeting and shall take objections. However, no opportunity was given to the petitioner and to any other party.
The petitioner as well as other firms submitted their representations but no action was taken. On 15.9.2017, allotment of contract was made in favour of respondent No.5 without taking into account the fact that it was not even technically qualified. According to the petitioner, if some condition was required to be waived off by the committee or by the official respondents, then an order was required to be passed as to under what circumstances the requirement of the challan for GST was waived off. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.22125 of 2017 seeking quashing of impugned letter dated 15.9.2017. After the disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner submitted various representations. The official respondents passed order dated 10.11.2017 rejecting the representations filed by the petitioner. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioner.
3.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.
Admittedly, the respondent Board floated contract for providing house keeping and security services for the period from 16.9.2017 to 31.3.2018. Earlier also, the petitioner had been awarded such contract. This time, certain terms and conditions were laid down in the requisite form. The firms which applied for the contract were required to fulfil the said requirements. One of the condition was that the information was to be submitted in excel file and latest copy of challan of deposit of EPF, ESI and GST was also to be filed. The petitioner fulfilled all the requirements but respondent No.5 did not file the copy of the challan at the initial stage and only mentioned 'yes' against the requisite column. A perusal of the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 shows that after examining the matter, it was found that in the case of respondent No.5, last date of payment of GST was 20.9.2017 due to which it was asked to produce the copy of the challan later. By doing so, on technical ground, respondent No.5 was not ineligible
and it submitted the copy of the challan on 19.9.2017. It was also recorded that the GST had been implemented by the government with effect from 1.7.2017. The petitioner quoted 37,97,518.10 whereas respondent No.5 quoted 36,46,943.60. After examining the case of both the firms, the committee selected respondent No.5 for the contract. The bid given by respondent No.5 was found to be more beneficial and thus was accepted. Further, it is entirely within the domain of the authorities to accept or reject the offer keeping in view the overall interest of public unless the action is either arbitrary, malafide or discriminatory. In the present case, the decision has been taken by the official respondents after examining the entire facts and circumstances of the case, which could not be demonstrated to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
!"# $ %&' &&" $ "
%&" & ! ( %) $% % & % %&&% '%& $ * ' % +( & ,* "& %
$" % & $ !
& & & '!(" & +&
) % & ' &&" %&" & % & "&- %&"
"% % ' &&" +' % ' ! "& %"' !!( *"
! "&" %& %! !!) ! &( " "+ &" " %%& "& &'!(" "%&.&$ !
"/0 1.&' (+&"
& & %&" &% %&+) #%&&!$& &% ""+ & & 2 !!(&"
& &&'!(" &+&
) &" "3 & ' "
% " !( + %) $ & % & ' %3 "&- %&"
"% % ' &&" + ' % ' ! 4 ) "&-
" & % % ' &&"+ %)! ' & % & % & "3& "& %"' !!(*"
!"&" %&
%! !!) ! &(" "+ &" " %%& "& &'!(" "%&%& &""
5
6 "' "& %
!"
" # $% $# !
& & & %&" & ''" ! &" % & % 7# !
& %) &% " % $ "
%) %&" & " %& !!( ''" !
%& % " % ! 2 &( % % & " !
& & ( &
& %.
& % % ' &&" +%
% % +! %&"&3 "&$ !!%& %*" $"
!"# $3 %&"
"#% "
" ! +"" & % " """ % '%& " "
& &% "" '
&$"
!"# $$ !!%&+"' && &+ %#8 & "&& " # & %&"& & & & +! %&"&3 " & %&" & ! & "& *"
! "&" %& %! !!) ! &(" "+ &" " %%& "& &9#"%'%& %&' &&" "%& ,* "& %
&'
( ) * + , 4 : 6 $ & ") "
& &
! "# $ % %&" & ! ' &&"3 %&" ! 3 %& & &&6& & &" & ""2 " &+% )" &"! & &
% "'
! & %)% & % &% '%& % $ "
%) %&" &3 % & " & % %&%&
!"# $ %! & %+ '%&" & &+ ' ! 3 "+ &" "(3 %" % +! " ' & & & &"( $" "!# %&+"# & %""
&" % "*&" & "/0
!"# $ %%&" & !' &&"$
"&"* ' % +(& "& %
3
! % %"# $%
& & '(())+ #" !&" %&$ $% %&" "
% $# **
+ , & '('-'&!) ! & % %& + &$ '' &" '"% #"# $ " % ! ! $ ! +! & & " "
! "# $ %& %& !!$ %)$"
/6: " :0 1: ;"' & +# %3 & !!$ %) " % !'")/ &+ "2 "'%& ,"& ! "% % & %+(&6& &3 % %%0 "+ &" " % %% +& % & "&+ & " ! ( & % " '% +!&&
!"# $%!(& & *&%& & & & 6& & '
& & # !
!( "
"% +! " % % %& $ ' !!( " %(
!&" " ".
&6& & &$ & %&+ " % +!%3 & $ + !) & ' & & & 8 %&% " & %&% & % !" " & < + * & % # !
& &% " %& "!( $ & % & "# $ & * & # % "& "
!( # %("!&! ( %& "*&
"&" 8 %) $% & % &* & # "# & + "+ &" "( " %" % +! .
& 9#"%'%& & %% "' &($ &"& % !&( & % "
% %"' $ "
%) %&" & +( %# & %) &% "3 % & " '& %3 & %&"
"%+( "& #"(! ' & < .% & ' &&" "'
! & %) % & % &% '%& % $ "
%) %&" &3 )" &" ! & &
"2 " & + % & & 6& &
&" & %!& & % &% " %) &" &( & + ' ! % ' & & & &"( $"3 %&"
"% +( "& %& $ "" %& <
"& % "% & % " 2 & % " &% " # & + !
$% & % " & & & %&" &" & &( % & " " &
!!(* &&$"8< % .
& 6& & " & %&"
'%& ! & & " % +!(3 "!( % % +! %&"& % $ "
%) %&" &3" ) %3 %&"
"%+( "& #"( "&" & # % % "% % ! '
'%& ! " )&& ""(%+ %$ &&9#"%'%& " "3 "&+ " %&"
" %) %&% " %&" & ! ' &&"3 % *" $"
!"# $3 & &!
& !!$ %) & %/ &"&" & " %'
+(& &" &( ' !
" %&% & # " '%< " $&" & " & "
%'
"+ &" "( % "" & % !& && "& % (/ =& % & &%"% +! &" &( & %)" % +!( % % "
%$ &"!# %& ! $ #" =< % &" & +! %&"&
& .
& %$"&& +#2 & % " %%) & #3&% &" +% %&"
"% ","& ! 5 , %& & %& "! " "& & "
"& % & %!&&% ""$ %%$ ( " ' % &"(" ' !
%&%&" "(3 %&" & +% $ "
& & % % & &% " " " & % & %) & !) ! &( % "" &(
& %) & # !
&( &&% ""$ # " %.% '
& '&%& &" &( & %! & &% "3 &
%& # ! & %(
'%& ! " )& &
> !! %& %" & & % & "% %& + &"'
%" % +! & $ "" %& %( %&"
"% "' & "& ? # % @% & 4 ) "& $ 3 % & & # $3"
&!(
& %&& %) &"
" +( &6 %)!A
) % ' %)&$" && & %5 8.
In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure P.22) and also the award of contract to respondent No.5 vide Annexure P.18 dated 15.9.2017 in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge November 29, 2017 (Amit Rawal) 'gs'
Judge &" 8 %)B" % . &"""& +! .