JUDGMENT Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. (Oral):- CM No. 15708 of 2013 Leave is granted to place on record replication and the application is allowed. CWP No. 22988 of 2013 Rule D.B. 2. Learned counsel for respondents accepts notice. 3. At request of learned counsels for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The only issue requires to be examined in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) can be denied the benefit of participation in the tender floated by the respondents for transportation of foodgrains. 5. The petitioner has been registered as a Society on 11.4.2013 under the said Act. The Memorandum of the Society, inter alia, permits the petitioner to carry on the following task:- “2) The main objective of the Society is to transport the public goods safely and to deliver them on time. Society can apply for any tender, contract etc. for transportation of any type of goods, grain etc.” 6. The Food Corporation of India (FCI) issued a regular tender enquiry on 23.8.2013 inviting sealed tenders for appointment of Transport Contractor, Handling and Transport Contractor and Road Transport Contractor for two years. The petitioner on payment of requisite fee obtained the tender and participated in the tender. The tender was a two bid system with the last date stipulated as 23.8.2013. The technical bids were opened and the petitioner claimed that it satisfied the technical terms and conditions yet the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected by the FCI, vide order dated 9.10.2013 on the ground that the petitioner does not qualify technically as it is a Society registered under the said Act who are not permitted to indulge in commercial activities. The said impugned order dated 9.10.2013 also states that only such bodies who are registered as Cooperative Societies can do commercial activities. However, the particular tender process was scrapped because the petitioner was the only bidder at that time. 7. A fresh tender enquiry was issued on 18.9.2013 where also the petitioner participated its tender on-line. The petitioner has approached this Court for the reason that it apprehended a similar fate even in this tender enquiry on account of the reasons mentioned in the order dated 9.10.2013. 8. 7. A fresh tender enquiry was issued on 18.9.2013 where also the petitioner participated its tender on-line. The petitioner has approached this Court for the reason that it apprehended a similar fate even in this tender enquiry on account of the reasons mentioned in the order dated 9.10.2013. 8. It is not in dispute that there is no prohibition for any Society to participate in the tender process as per the terms and conditions of the tender. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that there is an internal policy decision as Clause-10 provides all the Truck Operator Union and Partnership Firm are required to get themselves registered with the appropriate authority. 9. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that the preamble to the said Act refers for improving the legal condition of societies established for the promotion of literature, science, or the fine arts, or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, or for charitable purposes and thus, the Society of a kind of the petitioner is not envisaged under the said Act and the petitioner ought not to have been registered as a Society under the said Act. 10. We, however, find that it is not the function of the FCI to go into the issue of registration of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the competent authority has registered the petitioner under the said Act. The terms and conditions of the tender do not prohibit the participation of any entity registered under the said Act. The memorandum of the petitioner permits participation and carrying on activity of the nature for which the petitioner has offered bid. Thus, there can be no ostensible reason to throw out the technical bid of the petitioner. 11. We are thus, of the view that the impugned order dated 9.10.2013 is liable to be quashed but since that tender is scrapped, the net result would be that the bid submitted by the petitioner qua the second tender would be analyzed both on technical and financial parameters de hors the condition that the participating bidder like the petitioner registered under the said Act should not be considered. 12. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents submits that there is an apprehension with the officers of the respondent that in view of the provision of Section 13 of the said Act, a Society can be dissolved on a motion by 3/5th of its Members. However, that apprehension is misplaced as even a partnership can be dissolved and so can be a limited company. Thus, whatever additional precautions are taken in those cases can always be taken qua the petitioner. 13. The petition is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------