Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 382 (MP)

Bhatia Transport Service v. State of M. P.

2019-05-13

R.S.JHA, SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashment of order dated 18.4.2019, Annexure P-1, by which the respondent authorities have issued orders regarding sector-wise and lead-wise rates for the purpose of transportation of foodstuffs undertaken by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Marketing Federation and allotted the same to the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the tender proceedings for allotment of transportation work pursuant to the tender notice issued by the respondents and was L-1 tenderer for being allotted the contract. It is submitted that, inspite of the fact that the petitioner was L-1 tenderer and as was entitled to be alloted the work, the respondent authorities entered into negotiation with the transporters and have thereafter issued the impugned order totally ignoring the fact that the petitioner was L-1 in the tender proceedings and is, therefore, entitled to and has acquired a right for obtaining contract for transportation. 4. It is submitted that the action taken by the respondent authorities is totally against the provisions of law and fair play. It is submitted that once the petitioner has been notified as L-1 tenderer having offered the best competitive rates for transportation, the authorities are bound to allot the tender to the petitioner and could not have negotiated and awarded to the others. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 6. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition, specifically the document Annexure P-9 as well as the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith the application (I.A. No. 5426/2019) for taking additional documents on record, it is apparent that though the petitioner was the L-1 tenderer in the tender proceedings and orders have also passed in that regard, subsequently, the respondent authorities have cancelled and quashed the entire tender proceedings by order dated 9.4.2019. The order cancelling the tender proceedings dated 9.4.2019 has neither been filed alongwith the petition nor has the same been challenged. 7. The order cancelling the tender proceedings dated 9.4.2019 has neither been filed alongwith the petition nor has the same been challenged. 7. The documents on record, specifically Annexures P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12 and P-13 as well as the additional documents filed by the petitioner along with the application, indicate that subsequent to cancellation of the tender proceedings the authorities, with a view to provide immediate transportation facilities which became necessary due to public agitation and law and order situation, have called all L-1 transporters and have attempted to award the transportation contract on the basis of negotiations. It is further evident that the petitioner has participated in the negotiation that was held on 13.4.2019, but he did not participate in the negotiation that took place subsequently on 15.4.2019. The minutes of the negotiation of 15.4.2019 record the fact that the petitioner has telephonically informed the manager that he is willing to undertake transportation work only on the rates that have been tendered by him. The authorities have thereafter undertaken negotiations and have issued order Annexure P-1. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that emerge from a perusal of the documents, it is apparent that the tender proceedings, initiated by the respondents vide Annexure P-2, have been cancelled and that the impugned order dated 18.4.2019 has been issued on the basis of negotiation for the interim period till fresh tender proceedings have taken up. The minutes of the meetings dated 13.4.2019 that have been filed by the petitioner along with the application further indicates that the authorities could not have taken up fresh tender proceedings on account of the fact that the Model Code of Conduct is in operation and issuance of fresh tender thereafter and finalization of the same would take time. The authorities have recorded that because of the aforesaid situation they have called the transporters to award the contract of transportation through negotiations which has also become an emergent necessity on account of public agitation and law and order situation. 9. The authorities have recorded that because of the aforesaid situation they have called the transporters to award the contract of transportation through negotiations which has also become an emergent necessity on account of public agitation and law and order situation. 9. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition, moreso as the tender proceedings, on the basis of which the petitioner has sought relief have already been cancelled by order dated 9.4.2019 and the order cancelling the same has also not been challenged by the petitioner as well as the fact that the authorities in the minutes of the meeting have stated that they are unable to take up fresh tender proceedings immediately on account of the Model Code of Conduct. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the petition, filed by the petitioner, being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.