Pradeep Gandhi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2526 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                       AFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WPPIL No. 62 of 2022

Pradeep Gandhi S/o Shobhalal Gandhi, aged about 58 years, House No.
23, Ward 27, SBI Colony, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 491441.
                                                              ---- Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department of
     Transport, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, 492007.
2.   Directorate of Transport Through Its Transport Commissioner,
     Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur 492007.
3.   M/s Real Mazon India Ltd. 304, Building No. 26, Nirmal Tower,
     Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001.
4.   Rosmerta Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd. F -119, Maapuri Industrial Area,
     Phase - II, New Delhi 110064.
                                                          ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Suyash Pande, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Additional Advocate General

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Judge

Order on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

20.04.2022

Heard Mr. Suyash Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

2. The petitioner was a Member of Parliament of the 14 th Lok Sabha and

he was also elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly in 2003 from the

Dongargaon constituency.

3. In the present petition, styled as a public interest litigation, at '(B)

Subject matter in brief', it is stated as follows :

"The present Petition has been filed in public interest

challenging the wordings and interpretation of Clause

1.1.4 of Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021 floated by

the Respondent No.2 unjustifiably restricting the

competition for the project for the issuance of High

Security Registration Plates for existing vehicles in the

State of Chhattisgarh, to only those manufacturers who

have implemented High Security Registration Plate

Projects in five whole states for one or more years in the

last five years. It is submitted that the Clause itself is

worded vaguely and the Respondent No.2 has given it an

interpretation which is plainly contrary to the wordings of

the clause and thereby limited participation to only those

manufacturers who have obtained the specified

experience pursuant to agreements with State/UT

Governments. As a result only three out of the eighteen

Type-approved manufacturers would qualify for award of

the contract. This unjustifiably restricts the competition

and impacts the prices offered, as clearly visible from a

Petition filed by one of the manufacturers whose bid has

been rejected, who claims that the L-1 bid is 31.58%

higher than its bid. This higher price would have to be

borne by the vehicle owners of the State of Chhattisgarh."

4. Following prayers are made in the petition :

"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

allow the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner

and call for the records pertaining to the present case.

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue an appropriate writ/order/direction more particularly

the one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to the

respondents 1 & 2 particularly and thereby set

aside/quash the Clause No.1.1.4, 3.1 and 6.8 of the

Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021 floated by the

Respondent No.2.

(iii) That, Alternatively, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the

Respondents more particularly to Respondent no.1 & 2 to

declare and direct that Clause 1.1.4 shall be given a plain

and literal interpretation thereby allowing experience

gained by HSRP manufacturers through Agreements other

than those with State/UT Governments to be considered

for the purposes of determining eligibility for the award of

contract;

(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the

Respondents more particularly to Respondent no.1 & 2 to

open the financial bids of all Type-approved HSRP

manufactures who have submitted bids;

(v) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the

Respondents more particularly to Respondent no.1 & 2 to

declare as void and illegal any contract that may have

been executed by the State Government pursuant to the

arbitrary tender process followed by it;

(vi) That any order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of

the present case may also kindly be awarded to the

petitioner in the interest of justice."

5. The petition was filed on 11.04.2022.

6. A writ petition was filed by one of the tenderers, being Celex

Technologies Pvt. Ltd., registered as WPC No. 786 of 2022, challenging

the rejection of its tender at the stage of techno-commercial evaluation on

account of non-fulfilling the eligibility criteria for non-compliance of Clauses

1.1.4, 4.3.1(xi) and 6.8 of Instructions to Bidders, for short, ITB. By an

order dated 16.02.2022, while issuing notice, this Court rejected the interim

prayer to stay the tender proceedings.

7. Another writ petition was filed by another tenderer, namely, FTA

HSRP Solutions Private Ltd., registered as WPC No. 809 of 2022, wherein

also challenge was made to rejection of the bid of the petitioner at the

stage of techno-commercial evaluation. By an order dated 18.02.2022,

while issuing notice, the prayer for interim order to stay the tender process

was rejected.

8. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 18.02.2022 would go to show

that, amongst others, techno commercial evaluation of the petitioner therein

was rejected on account of non-compliance of Clause 1.1.4.

9. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that Letter of Acceptance has been

issued by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

10. Mr. Pande submits that price bid of the petitioner in WPC No.786 of

2022 is lower than the bid of the L-1 bidder by 31.58% and therefore, there

is an element of public interest in this case in the sense that a higher price

would have to be borne by the vehicle owners of the State.

11. Mr. Shrivastava submits that this petition cannot be construed as a

public interest litigation. It is submitted that the petitioner has copiously

borrowed the averments made in the earlier two writ petitions and no new

material is placed before this Court. He submits that when all necessary

steps have taken to award the contract, this petition has been filed as a

proxy petition in the garb of public interest litigation. When two writ

petitions are already pending and when other so called affected parties,

who are big business establishments, have not approached this Court

challenging the tender conditions, no case is made out to entertain this

public interest litigation, in respect of, essentially, a contractual matter. He

places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in

the case of Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and Others ,

reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333, with particular reference to paragraph 88.

12. Paragraph 88 reads as follows :

"88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered

and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly

been where there has been an element of violation of Article

21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been

initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged

who are unable to come to Court due to some disadvantage.

In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by

the Courts. We may, however, add that Public Interest

Litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the

financial or economic decisions which are taken by the

Government in exercise of their administrative power. No

doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision,

which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a Court

of law, but, a Public Interest Litigation at the behest of a

stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot

per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless

the Court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article

21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to

approach the Court."

13. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others ,

reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that

the Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is

involved before entertaining the petition and that the Courts, before

entertaining the public interest litigation, should ensure that the petition is

aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Courts

should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique

motive behind filing of the public interest litigation. It is laid down therein

that the Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for

extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing

exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous

petitions filed for extraneous considerations.

14. This petition has been filed with an inordinate delay. We also find that

there is no public interest involved. The petitioner is a stranger to the

tender process. Two writ petitions, filed at the instance of unsuccessful

tenderers, are already pending before this Court. That being the position,

we decline to entertain this petition and, accordingly, the same is

dismissed.

15. The petitioner will deposit the security amount within a period of two

weeks from today.

                         Sd/-                                      Sd/-
                (Arup Kumar Goswami)                (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
                     Chief Justice                               Judge


Chandra