Ajay Mohan Goel JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. The petitioner firm is aggrieved by the non-awarding of tender despite it being the lowest tenderer and has filed this petition with the following prayers:-
"a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the act of the respondent thereby cancelling the tender dated 29.08.2016, wherein the petitioner has been declared as L1 as well as short-term E-tender notice calling for tenders to be opened on 26.09.2016.
b) Direct the Respondent No. 2 to issue supply order to the petitioner in respect of Urd and Black Masar pulses in group 2, where the petitioner has been declared as L1 by the respondent."
2. It is averred that H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (respondent No. 2) had initially invited global E-tenders for procurement of various pulses and the last date for submission of online tenders alongwith samples was 25.07.2016. The petitioner firm being eligible applied for and submitted 16 out of 18 bids and even deposited the earnest money of ` 75 lacs. Out of these 16 bids so submitted by the petitioner firm, it was declared L-1 in 10 bids. But inspite of this, respondent No. 2 malafidely and with an ulterior motive and with the sole purpose of ousting the petitioner firm unilaterally and without assigning any reason cancelled the tender.
3. The respondent-Corporation thereafter invited fresh bids for the same items and the petitioner firm again participated and was successfully declared as L-1 in the second group inasmuch as the petitioner firm was declared L-1 for 'Urd Sabut' for three months as well as for six months supply and the petitioner firm was declared as L-1 for 'Black Masar' for six months supply.
4. It is thereafter averred that the respondent-Corporation once again in order to oust the petitioner firm from the tender process malafidely and with an ulterior motive cancelled the bids for the second group and again called fresh tenders for the entire group in which the petitioner firm was declared as L-1. The petitioner firm has assailed the action of the respondents on the grounds of discrimination, malafides and abuse of power.
5. At this stage, we may observe that though initially respondent No. 1 had filed its reply, however, on the request made, the reply was ordered to be withdrawn, as would be evident from the order dated 28.09.2016 and it is thereafter that respondent No. 1 has filed fresh reply. It has been averred therein that it was the State Level Purchase Committee constituted by the State Government under the Chairmanship of the Managing Director of respondent No. 2 that the decision to cancel the earlier tender dated 25.07.2016 had been taken as per the procedure in view of the downward trend in the prices of pulses and good monsoon reported in media which recommendations were accepted by the State Government. In all, tenders for 9 pulses were to be invited which were divided into 3 groups and lowest rated 'Dal' in each group was to be selected for distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS). The classification of the selected pulses was to be done on the basis of the ascending order of prices to eliminate post tender discretion and also to ensure that one 'Dal' from each group is procured in a transparent manner and the grouping of the pulses is as under:-
6. In the tender subsequently floated which is the subject-matter of the instant lis, the quoted rates for all 'Dals' were found to be far lesser than the one which was quoted in the earlier tender of ` 195 to 2091 per quintal. The financial bid for 'Moong Sabut' in Group-2 had not been opened as there was only one bidder firm namely 'M/s. Sanna Enterprises' which was also not found technically qualified which meant that L-1 rate of the group had only been received for two pulses. Therefore, the Committee was of the opinion that the Government may select L-1 'Dal' i........