Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 409 (ALL)

ANMOL OIL AND FOOD PRIVATE LTD v. UNION OF INDIA

2004-02-27

JAGDISH BHALLA, KHEM KARAN

body2004
JAGDISH BHALLA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has preferred this writ petition against the tender process relating to Award of contract for grinding wheat for all the 23 stations of Central Command of Indian Army for the period Ist April, 2003 to 31st March, 2005. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is already supplying flour by grinding wheat into Atta through Chakki Plant and has modified/upgraded his Flour Mill into Roller Flour Mill on account of requirement of the authorities for award of contract for the period 1st april, 2003 to 31st March, 2005. Petitioner in support thereof has annexed the letter of Officiating Commanding Officer, Gwalior addressed to Head Quarter Central Command (ST) wherein it has been indicated that the petitioner has upgraded his Flour Mill into Roller Flour Mill. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was called upon by the letter dated 4th October, 2002 for the interview with regard to conclusion of contract for grinding wheat into "atta" for the period indicated hereinabove. Since the petitioner has successfully satisfied the Inverviewing Officers, the letter dated 19th december, 2002 was issued to the petitioner on behalf of MG, ASC informing the petitioner that the Advertiement for intitial tendering and subsequent re-tendering of local grinding of wheat into "atta", contracts will be pulished on or before 25th December, 2002 in four Newspapers. It has been vehemently argued that only reason for informing the petitioner is that the petitioner has satisfied the Intervewing Authority but he was shocked when he was refused Tender Form while he went to collect the same. Petitioner immediately on 21. 1. 2003 sought interview with opposite Party No. 2 through proper channel by making request to opposite party no. 4. On the date of interview, petitioner signed the interview Book in presence of opposite party no. 4. ( 4 ) DR. L. P. Mishra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that there was no reason for the authorities not to issue tender Form in view of the letter dated 18th January, 2003 of Officiating commanding Officer, Gwalior written to Opposite Party no. 3 mentioning therein that the Flour Mill of the petitioner has been upgraded into Roller flour Mill and there exists no adverse material against the petitioner. 3 mentioning therein that the Flour Mill of the petitioner has been upgraded into Roller flour Mill and there exists no adverse material against the petitioner. Therefore, the action of opposite parties in refusing to give Tender Form to the petitioner was wrong and illegal. Further, no inspection was conducted of the petitioners Firm to verify the above facts. It was only after filing of the writ petition that an inspection was made by Sri Reji menon, Major on 3. 2. 2003 in absence of the petitioner. It has also been stated that the Officer who has conducted the inspection is not an Expert whereas the petitioner has annexed a report of an Expert alongwith the documents which were sent by the Officiating Commanding Officer to the central Command, Lucknow by the letter dated 18th January, 2003. ( 5 ) SRI Syed Husain, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the union of India has produced the relevant record pertaining to the contract including the Interview Book. A perusal of the Interview Book reveals that beside the petitioner one more person was interviewed and in remark column of the Interview Book it has been mentioned that petitioner and the other contractor had admitted that at the moment their Flour Mill is functional and they are in the process of upgrading the same. It is in these circumstances, that the Tender Form was not issued. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner refuted the remarks and submitted that no remarks were entered into the Interview Book in presence of the petitioner nor any such statement was given by the petitioner. On the other hand, Opposite Party No. 4, who was present at the time of Interview of the petitioner and another participant , also appeared before this Court and had made a categorical statement that the remarks were made by the Opposite Party No. 3 in presence of the petitioner. ( 7 ) WE, therefore, do not see any reason not to accept the statement of oppsoite party no. 4, who is an officer of the rank of Colonel in Indian army. ( 7 ) WE, therefore, do not see any reason not to accept the statement of oppsoite party no. 4, who is an officer of the rank of Colonel in Indian army. So far as the letter dated 18th January, 2003 of Officiating commanding Officer is concerned, he while forwarding the documents of the petitioner to the Central Command Headquarters has only recommended that the petitioner has upgraded his Flour Mill into Roller flour Mill without making any physical verification of the Mill and as such the opposite party no. 3 has not committed any illegality in not relying on the letter dated 18th January, 2003. Further, it appears that the authorities in order to show fairness and that the petitioner can be eligible for next tender, decided to make inspection of the petitioners premises and, therefore, an Officer of the rank of Major, who is said to be a Technical Officer dealing with such inspections was deputed to make inspection. The report of the said Officer also does not support the contention of the petitioner and is not in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that Officiating commanding Officer has recommended the case of the petitioner on the basis of the documents sent by the petitioner has no force. ( 8 ) WITH regard to the inspection made by the authorities on 3rd february, 2003, it has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Officer who has conducted the inspection is not an expert in the field of Food Processing whereas the Opposite Party No. 4, who was present in Court on the date of hearing, has informed that a special Training has been imparted to the Officer concerned, who has made the physical inspection of the petitioners Firm. In these circumstances, we do not like to further examine the Technical qualification of the officer. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the authorities in refusing the Tender Form when the authorities were satisfied that he has yet not got his Flour Mill converted into Roller Flour Mill and further the letter dated 18th January, 2003 of Officiating Commanding Officer, gwalior is only recommendatory and no physical verification was done by him prior to issue of the aforesaid letter. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, we are of the opinion that no intereference is warranted in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. .