W.P.(C) No. 199 of 2015. Case: Vikash Construction Vs The Union of India and Ors.. Meghalaya High Court

Case NumberW.P.(C) No. 199 of 2015
Party NameVikash Construction Vs The Union of India and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: P.T. Sangma, Adv. and For Respondents: K.S. Kynjing and K. Sunar, Advs.
JudgesVed Prakash Vaish, J.
IssueCommercial Law
Judgement DateFebruary 16, 2017
CourtMeghalaya High Court

Judgment:

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

  1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks for setting aside and quashing of the Tender Notice dated 17th July, 2015 and for a direction to the respondents to allot work to the petitioner pursuant to appointment letter dated 30th June 2015.

  2. Briefly recapturing the facts as stated in the petition are that, the respondent Food Corporation of India (FCI) floated a Tender dated 03rd March, 2015 inviting eligible bidders for appointment as Road Transport Contractor for transportation of the foodgrains/allied materials in the route from Railhead Baihata/FCI Godown Baihata, Assam to FSD Lunglei, Mizoram for a period of six months on regular basis (extendable by three months).

  3. The petitioner participated in the aforesaid tender process. It is stated that the petitioner quoted very competitive rate and was appointed as a contractor for transportation of foodgrains/allied materials in the route from Railhead Baihata/FCI Godown Baihata, Assam to FSD Lunglei, Mizoram for a period of six months and accordingly the respondent issued acceptance of tender dated 26th May, 2015 for appointment of Transport Contractor for a period of six months subject to payment of Rs. 19,35,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand only) in the form of Demand Draft and another sum of Rs. 58,05,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Five Thousand only) as 15% of Bank Guarantee and another sum of Rs. 38,70,000/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) as additional Bank Guarantee.

  4. It is also stated that the petitioner fulfilled all the formalities and deposited the security money and bank guarantee. The respondent vide communication dated 30th June, 2015 appointed the petitioner as a Transport Contractor for transportation of the foodgrains/allied material in the route from Railhead Baihata/FCI Godown Baihata, Assam to FSD Lunglei, Mizoram.

  5. The petitioner has alleged that despite appointing the petitioner as Transport Contractor, the respondent had not given/allotted even a single work like carrying of goods for the concerned route in spite of the petitioner having invested huge amounts.

  6. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents for not giving/allotting him the work despite various communications, the petitioner approached the Grievance Redressal Committee, Zonal Office of the respondent at Guwahati. The said Committee also not responded to the grievance of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner chose to file the present petition.

  7. The petition has been opposed by the respondents and counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4. The respondents, in the affidavit-in-reply have denied the allegations leveled by the petitioner. It is admitted by the respondent that no work has been allotted to the petitioner pursuant to the contract awarded to him. It is also stated that the contract was awarded to the petitioner vide communication dated 30th June, 2015 and the petitioner submitted the joining report on 07th July, 2015. The present petition has been filed on 06th August, 2015 after one...

To continue reading

Request your trial