Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 939 (PNJ)

Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Punjab

2010-02-22

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ALOK SINGH

body2010
Judgment Alok Singh, J. 1 The instant writ petition has been filed seeking writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-8) by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed fo. quashing the selection process of allotment of tender in pursuance to the advertisement dated 1.9.2008 and to re-conduct the tender process by inviting eligible applicants on account of the fact that the process of allotment was vitiated. 2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner - M/s. Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd., which deals with purchasing manufacturing, producing, importing, exporting and generally dealing with sugar and all bio products of sugar, in response to an advertisement dated 1.9.2008 issued by respondent No.2 vide which "expression of interest for setting up of Co- Generation Plants in various Sugar Mills of the State of Punjab alongwith improving/upgrading on BOOT basis" were invited, approached respondent No.2 and procured the detailed terms and conditions for the aforesaid purpose. As per the advertisement, referred to above, the interested parties were to submit their "expression of interest" either for a single unit or for more or all units with the stipulation that the proposed Co-Generation Plant was to be set up/commissioned by the end of October, 2009. As per the advertisement, pre bid conference was to be held on 12.15 PM on 3.10.2008 and thereafter, "expression of interest" were to be received by 16.10.2008 and were to be opened on the same day. 3 Prior to pre bid conference, officials of the petitioner - company visited the Financial Adviser of respondent No.2 and sought clarification as to whether in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, only the Co-Generation Plant was to be allotted to the private bidder or Sugar Mill was also to be set up by the bidder insofar as the Bhogpur Co-operative Sugar Mill is concerned, as the petitioner was interest in Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mill only. In response to the aforesaid query, the petitioner was informed to attend the pre bid conference for clarification and raising the grievance, if any. However, the petitioners did not attend the pre bid conference on 3.10.2008. After the pre bid conference, a supplementary tender document was issued by the official respondents and a copy of the same was also given to the petitioner. However, the petitioners did not attend the pre bid conference on 3.10.2008. After the pre bid conference, a supplementary tender document was issued by the official respondents and a copy of the same was also given to the petitioner. It was averred by the petitioner that according to the aforesaid supplementary document, only the Co-Generation Plant was to be given and not the Sugar Mill, yet the petitioner kept on insisting to the official respondents to clarify the position. The petitioner having failed to receive any clarification, submitted a representation dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure P-6) to the respondents through sister concern M/s. A.B. Sugar Ltd. for allowing them to set up a Co-Generation Plant alongwith Sugar Mill and to accept its tender. No response was received by the petitioner to the aforesaid representation. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted various representations for the aforesaid purpose. 4 The petitioner had come to know that only one tender of respondent No.4 for the Co-Generation Plant, as well as, sugar mill was received for Bhogpur Co-operative Sugar Mill in contradiction with the terms and conditions envisaged in the tender document and that the aforesaid tender was finalized in favour of respondent No.4 and the official respondents are in the process of issuing the allotment letter/signing of Memorandum of Understanding. 5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid attitude of the official respondents, the petitioner approached this Court: by filing writ petition, alleging that the entire tender process has been finalized in hush hush manner and the petitioner was not informed about the fact whether both, sugar mill and the Co-Generation Plant would be given to the bidder or only the Co-Generation Plant. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 22.12.2008 with the direction to decide the representation(s) of the petitioner on the aforesaid subject. 6 In compliance with the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the official respondents considered and rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 31.12.2008. 7 Through the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the official respondents whereby its representation was rejected and the tender of respondent No.4 for both, Co-Generation Plant and sugar mill was accepted. 7 Through the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the official respondents whereby its representation was rejected and the tender of respondent No.4 for both, Co-Generation Plant and sugar mill was accepted. 8 in the reply filed by respondent No.2, it is the stand of the official respondents that the petitioner was not interested in the project as it did not attend the pre bid meeting on 3.10.2008 and further that the petitioner did not submit any offer alongwith an amount of Rs.25 lacs, which was pre-requisite to show interest in the project. 9 The pre bid meeting was attended by 14 interested companies and on the basis of suggestions and discussions, supplementary tender document was issued and the same was advertised on 14.10.2008 in the news paper and the last date for submitting "expression of interest" was extended to 12.11.2008. The petitioner had also got the aforesaid supplementary document on 24.10.2008 and it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that Sugar Mill as well as Co-Generation Plant were to be allotted to the prospective bidder. It was further averred in the reply, that the Sugar Mill of the petitioner is in the close vicinity of the Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mill and the petitioner did not want that a competitive mill in its vicinity is set up. The petitioner was aware about the fact that the sugar mill v/as also to be set up by the prospective bidder and that it did not attend the pre bid meeting deliberately. In so far as the representations submitted by the petitioner seeking clarification is concerned, it is the stand of the official respondents that the same were duly considered in the meeting held on 3.12.2008. 10 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11 Undisputedly, prior to the pre bid conference, officials of the petitioner visited the Financial Adviser of respondent No.2 and sought clarification as to whether in pursuance to the advertisement, only Co-Generation Plant was to be allotted to the prospective bidders or the Sugar Mill was also to be set up. In response to the aforesaid query, the petitioner was informed to attend the pre bid conference for clarification and raising the grievance, if any. 12 It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not attend the pre bid conference on 3.10.2008. In response to the aforesaid query, the petitioner was informed to attend the pre bid conference for clarification and raising the grievance, if any. 12 It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not attend the pre bid conference on 3.10.2008. It is not disputed that the petitioner was supplied supplementary tender document, which was issued by the official respondents. 13 Undisputedly, the pre bid meeting was attended by 14 interested companies and on the basis of suggestions and discussions, supplementary tender document was issued and the same was advertised on 14.10.2008 in the news paper and the last date for submitting "expression of interest" was extended to 12.11.2008. The petitioner had also got the aforesaid supplementary document on 24.10.2008 and it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that Sugar Mill as well as Co-Generation Plant were to be allotted to the prospective bidder. Undisputedly, the Sugar Mill of the petitioner is in the close vicinity of the Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mill. It seems, petitioner does not want that a competitive mill in its vicinity is set up. 14 In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-8), whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected. 15 For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.