Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 100 (PNJ)

Punjab Pradesh Paledar Union v. State of Punjab

2013-02-01

A.K.SIKRI, RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J. These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts though with conflict interest of the two petitioners who have filed these petitions. 2. Following facts emerge from the pleadings. 2. The official respondents had called tender for allotment of work of loading and unloading and stacking of food grains in all forty purchase centres/Mandis of the State of Punjab. The petitioners of both these petitions participated in the said tender process. Mr. Narinder Singh, who is petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 3 of 2013, was allotted labour and cartage contract for Pitho Mandi for the year 2012-13. The agreement in this behalf was also executed. The period of agreement is from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. Mr. Narinder Singh, petitioner had authorization from PUNSUP for this purpose, though, he has alleged in his petition that after allotment of the contract, other major agencies, namely, PUNSUP, Markfed, Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation, Punjab Agro and Food Corporation of India have also authorized him to carry out labour work on their behalf at the basic rates in the area of Pitho Mandi. Other petitioner, namely, Punjab Pardesh Palledar Union, Rampura Phul (in Civil Writ Petition No.2 of 2013) was awarded the contract for Rampura Phul centre, which is in District Bathinda. The contract of this petitioner is also for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013, for all the aforesaid agencies, namely, Pungrain, PUNSUP, Markfed, Punjab Agro and Punjab State Warehouse Corporation. 3. Both these petitioners started doing the work as per the terms of the agreement in their respective centres, namely, Pitho Mandi and Rampura Phul, respectively. Pitho Mandi in its area is comparatively much smaller than Rampura Phul Mandi which is awarded to Punjab Pardesh Palledar Union. In the meanwhile, two more godowns were constructed, one by Balaji Complex at Pitho and other by Ekam Enterprises at Pitho and these two enterprises/parties, who were constructing the godowns, entered into an agreement with Pungrain in July, 2012. 4. The dispute has now arisen between Narinder Singh and Punjab Pardesh Palledar Union as to who is to operate these two godowns whereas Narinder Singh claims that he is entitled to operate these godowns under the existing agreement because of the location of these two godowns which is in Pitho Mandi. 4. The dispute has now arisen between Narinder Singh and Punjab Pardesh Palledar Union as to who is to operate these two godowns whereas Narinder Singh claims that he is entitled to operate these godowns under the existing agreement because of the location of these two godowns which is in Pitho Mandi. On the other hand, Punjab Pardesh Pallendar Union claims its right to operate these godowns claiming that they fall in Rampura Phull centre. Mr. Sarabjeet Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mour, District Bhatinda, is present in Court who has apprised us of the bitter fight which is going on between the two petitioners over these two godowns. Because of this dispute between both the petitioners, which led to some ugly incidents as well, the officials respondents decided to invite tenders for operation of these two godowns vide tender notice dated 26.12.2012. Challenging this tender notice, both the parties i.e. petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petitions with their respective claims over these godowns. 5. The official respondents have filed the replies stating the circumstances under which the decision was taken to issue the impugned notice inviting tender. It is, inter-alia, stated that new godowns have been constructed by the private parties which were not in existence at the time of issuing tender, pursuant to which the agreements were signed with Narinder Singh for Pitho Mandi/centre and Punjab Pardesh Palledar Union for Rampura Phull Mandi/Centre. Various other reasons are also given. Two petitioners have also made various submissions on the basis of which they are staking their respective claims to operate these two godowns. 6. It is a matter of record that when the earlier NITs were invited for the purpose of loading, unloading and stacking of food grains, these two godowns were not in existence, therefore, they could not be a part of the said tender process. Once these godowns have been constructed subsequently, the officials respondents have a right to give these godowns after inviting tenders for the same. We would like to place on record that before taking this step of inviting tender in December, 2012, the official respondents had made attempts for amicable solution between the parties. Once these godowns have been constructed subsequently, the officials respondents have a right to give these godowns after inviting tenders for the same. We would like to place on record that before taking this step of inviting tender in December, 2012, the official respondents had made attempts for amicable solution between the parties. However, due to the adament attitude of the two petitioners, which remains so before us also at the time of hearing, the official respondents found that there is no other alternative but to issue tenders for allotment of these two godowns. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the step taken by the official respondents in inviting tenders is perfectly justified and is in order. It is stated at the cost of repetition that these two godowns which were constructed subsequently could not be a part of the agreement signed either with Narinder Singh or with Punjab Pardesh Palledar Union. We would also like to place on record that the matter was argued at length on yesterday i.e. 31.01.2013 and a fair offer was given by Mr. J.S.Puri, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab on instructions from Mr. Parveen Vij, District Food & Supply Controller, Bhatinda that the official respondents would have no objection if these two petitioners agree to take one godown each. However, counsel for both the parties were also given time to seek instructions from their clients. 7. Today, learned counsel appearing for Punjab Pardesh Palledar Union submits that this course of action is not acceptable to his client. It is strange and unjustified stand taken by the Punjab Pardesh Palledar Union and even a very fair offer of the official respondents is turned down. It is both the petitioners who have to suffer for the same because of the reason that otherwise neither of the petitioners have right over these two godowns. The course of action adopted by the official respondents, namely, issuing of tendering process appears to be most equitable and it is not a case where this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should intervene. Accordingly, the official respondents shall be entitled to proceed with the tendering process initiated. In these circumstances we dismiss both these petitions. Petitions dismissed.