Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1236 (PNJ)

Didar Masih v. Union Of India

2008-07-16

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2008
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The petitioners, who are owners of one truck-tank each, have filed the present petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of clause 11(a) of the terms and conditions of Tender (Annexure P-12), issued by respondent No. 1 for the purposes of inviting tender for the road transportation of Bulk Petroleum Products for 2008-2011. 2. Clause 11(a) of the terms and conditions of Tender in question provides that the tenderer should offer minimum five number of tank trucks for Ambala Terminal, out of which minimum two tank trucks should be owned by the tenderer in his name and additional tank trucks offered may be owned or attached. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that as per the earlier terms and conditions (Annexure P-9) for 2005-2007, the tenderer was required to own at least one tank truck in his name. In the new terms and conditions, this condition has been changed, which according to the petitioners has illegally deprived them from earning their livelihood. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid clause in the tender is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as the aforesaid clause has imposed an unreasonable restriction over the right of the petitioners to choose their own employment or to take up any trade or business. Since the petitioners are owning only one tank truck each, therefore, they are not eligible to apply for the aforesaid tender. It is the further case of the petitioners that the aforesaid conditions imposed by the respondents cannot be said to be in public interest, as by the said condition, no objection is going to be achieved. 4. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and going through the contents of the petition, we do not find any merit in this petition. 5. Undisputedly, vide Annexure P-12, tenders were invited for the road transportation of Bulk Petroleum Products for 2008-2011. Keeping in view the nature of the transaction, the respondent Corporation has required that the tenderer must own at least two tank trucks. In our opinion, this decision taken by the respondent Corporation for giving the tender to a person owning at least two tank trucks cannot be said to be unreasonable. Keeping in view the nature of the transaction, the respondent Corporation has required that the tenderer must own at least two tank trucks. In our opinion, this decision taken by the respondent Corporation for giving the tender to a person owning at least two tank trucks cannot be said to be unreasonable. The aforesaid condition imposed by the respondent Corporation, while inviting the tenders, also cannot be said to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The condition imposed by the respondent Corporation can not be said to be unreasonable and the same falls under reasonable restriction on the exercise of rights conferred by this sub-clause. Undisputedly, the aforesaid condition is not in violation of any existing law. Even it is not the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid condition has been imposed by the respondent Corporation with some ulterior or mala fide motive or for extraneous consideration. In view of these facts, we do not find any ground to quash Clause 11(a) of the terms and conditions of Tender (Annexure P-12). Dismissed.