High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/27299/2017dismissed

M/S Hilltop Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. & ORS v. State Of Haryana Through Secretary State Transport Haryana

2017-11-30Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mr. Justice Arun Monga7 pages

Gurbax Singh 2017.12.11 10:09

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.27299 of 2017 Date of decision: 30.11.2017 M/s Hilltop Rubbers Pvt. Limited ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate with Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.

Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing clause at Sr.No.14 in the tender form and to allow the petitioners to participate in the proceedings of the said tender. Further prayer has been made for staying the proceedings of e-tender during the pendency of the petition.

A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Petitioner No.1 is a private limited company represented through its Directors i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing the retreading rubber material (procured). Respondent No.2 invited e-tenders for purchase of procured tread rubber and allied materials for retreading tyres vide e-tender dated 25.7.2017. The date and time of submission of e-tender on line was fixed for 21.8.2017 at 14.00 hours. On 21.8.2017, respondent

No.2 vide corrigendum extended the date of submission of request for proposal response on line to 5.9.2017 which was further extended from time to time upto 22.11.2017. According to the petitioners, the official respondents extended the date with malafide intention to favour one firm namely M/s Global Rubber Polymers and to cause loss and injury to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 illegally issued purchase order dated 25.8.2017 having order value for 1,00,82,540.00 to M/s Global Rubber Polymers without following the due process of tender for complete 12 months with the motive to benefit the said firm. The petitioners were shocked and surprised to find on 21.11.2017 that respondent No.2 had uploaded fresh terms and conditions for the said tender which was extended.

The said clause reads as under:- "Manufacturers who are having pending arbitration case and also having contested penalty raised by Haryana Roadways in Hon'ble District Court or Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for performance of earlier supplied materials shall not be eligible to participate in the present tenders. Manufacturers having their penalty cases decided by Hon'ble Court will become ineligible if penalty imposed by Haryana Roadways is allowed to be refunded on final orders of the Courts/High Court."

In the year 2013, the petitioner had been awarded purchase order for supply of retreading material by respondent No.2 and its work was found to be very good to the satisfaction of the authorities. The petitioner company had submitted the bank guarantee. In the year 2014, the petitioner sought the release of the said bank guarantee but respondent No.2 declined to release the same and illegally demanded certain amount almost after two years of completion of the purchase order dated 30.4.2013. Out of the total amount, certain amount was released whereas for the rest of the amount arbitration proceedings are pending. According to the petitioners, to favour a particular

company, new clause has been added in the contract to debar the petitioners. The representations filed by the petitioners having received no response, they are before this court through the instant writ petition. 3.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4.

Admittedly, respondent No.2 invited e-tenders for purchase of procured tread rubber and allied materials for retreading tyres on 25.7.2017. The petitioners and other firms applied. The date of the tender was extended from time to time. A new clause was added with regard to the fact that the manufacturers who are having pending arbitration case and contested penalty raised by Haryana roadways in District court or High Court for performance of earlier supplied materials shall not be eligible to participate in the present tenders. According to the petitioners, the said condition is illegal. It is well settled that it is entirely within the domain of the authorities to lay down any condition unless the same is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory or malafide. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to produce any material on record to show that the said condition is illegal, arbitrary or irrational. 5.

! "

# $! %#

! $ " & $ ! # "! $ ! ' () *' !$ $" $+! !$" , ! $ " , & $ -"&

. $ " , ! # "!$ ! / 0 1

" # $% $# 2 " " ! +! ! '

$ $ , # , $ $ $

3 $ , # "! $ 4 %#

( ) * + , 5

.6 - 0 516 " , ,

1+$ " " " , $ $ , $!, $ ! $ # ()

# $!

! "#$%

& &

7 '(())$

% $# **

+ , & '('-'" $

$ " (51 ) 6 * 8 $ , " "( 56$+ % . $!1, )$ $ $ ! $ ! # 1 ! $ ! ! '

1 $ $ , $" 3 9 5$6 # ! # ! ! ! # 3 "

# $ $! $'

! ! " $!

" , , $!

! 9 56 '

" " , " + $ 1 "!

$ ! , $! 9

0 56 + $

! !# 39 56'

1 $!,

! $ " , " , $! ! "! $ 4 ,$ " , # , "+ ( 56 $! ! 9 $! !( : $ ! " $! :9 56 $

$ + " , $ %0/

% ! ! ;

!, $ + ""! !

" ! '

! , ! " $ $

! < = -" , , ! " $! 1 " >" " / ?

" $ , "" $ " $

, $ $ ! 1 . ",$!

In view of the above, no interference is called for 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 30, 2017 (Amit Rawal) 'gs'

Judge 3 "@ . $ .