Inder Trading Company vs Punjab State Agricultural Marketing ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3494 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Inder Trading Company vs Punjab State Agricultural Marketing ... on 18 April, 2026

Author: Deepak Sibal

Bench: Deepak Sibal

                         CWP No. 8194 of 2026


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                      CHANDIGARH

                                                     CWP NO.
                                                         NO.8194 OF 2026 (O&M)

              Inder Trading
                          g Company                                   ...Petitioner
                               Versus
              Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board
              and others                                              ...Respondents


              1.        The date when the judgment is reserved                 08.04.2026
              2.        The date when the judgment is pronounced               18.04.2026
              3.        The date when the judgment is uploaded                 18.04.2026
              4.        Whether only operative part of the judgment is         Full
                        pronounced or whether the full judgment is
                        pronounced
              5.        The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full         Not applicable
                        judgment, and reasons thereof


              CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
                      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

              Present :        Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal Advocate and
                               Mr. Umesh, Advocate,
                               for the petitioner.

                               Mr. R. S. Pandher, Addl. AG, Punjab.


              LAPITA BANERJI, J.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to a written

communication dated March 10, 2026 (Annexure P P-7), whereby respondent

No.2 held the experience for collection of user charges/parking fees of the

petitioner firm to be 01 years plus instead of 02 years.

2. The grievance of the petitioner, petitioner in short, is that in order to

unfairly oust him from the bidding bidding process initiated through Detailed Notice

Inviting Tender (for short "DNIT") dated February 13, 2026 2026, for collection

of user charges for use of Mandi Infrastructure nfrastructure by retail and other vehicles

of fruits, vegetables, food and beverages and other goods in the markets

(related places such as vegetable and fruit market or retail market or grain

market or any one o of these Mandis andis or all the Mandis or any place), as

determined ermined by the Market Committee, the experience of the petitioner was

shown as less than two tw years.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i) The DNIT was issued by the Market Committee Committee, Ludhiana-

respondent No.3 for collection of user use charges for use of Mandi

Infrastructure nfrastructure by retail and other vehicles for a period of 12 months between

April 01, 2026 to March 31, 2027.

ii) The instructions regarding enlistment of contractor firms in

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board-respondent Board respondent No.1 would govern

the DNIT.

              iii)             Under Clause 9(a)
                                            9 of the said instru

instructions, it was stipulated that

the firms applying for user charges collection related works must have

experience of collecting use user charges/parking fees in various

Government/Semi Semi-Government/Public Sector ector Undertakings (PSUs) for the

last 02 years (upto upto December 31, 2025).

iv) The petitioner annexed its Experience Certificate with the

documents. After considering the same, respondent No.2 vide the impugned

letter dated March 10, 2026 came to the conclusion that the experience of

the petitioner was of 01 plus years. Consequently, the petitioner's technical

bid was held to be unresponsive.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

that respondent No.2 acted arbitrarily and with ulterior motive by not

considering the Experience Certificate Certi (Annexure P P-4) issued by

respondent No.3. Had the said Certificate been considered in true letter and

spirit, the experience of the petitioner firm would tantamount to be more

than 02 years making him eligible in the technical bid.

5. Issue notice of motion.

6. Mr. Pandher, Pandher, Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing

on behalf of the State accepts notice on behalf of respondents and submits

that no infirmity has been caused by respondent No.2 in assessing the

experience of the petitioner firm to be 01 plus years and declaring it to be

ineligible qua the technical bid.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

8. Clauses 9 (a) and (b) of the instructions tructions issued by respondent

No.1 which are germane for the purpose of adjudication of the present

dispute, are reproduced hereinafter:

(a) (Only for User Charges Collection related works) Firms must have experience of collecting User Charges/Parking Fees in various Government/Semi Government/PSUS for last 2 years (upto 31.12.2025). In support of this, the bidder bi shall submit the copy of respective completion certificate(s) indicating the ssuccessful execution of annual collecting User Charges/Parking Fees work in Govt/Semi Govt/PSU organizations during last 2 years (upto 31.12.2025).

(b) Firm having no experience (new firms) certificate can only take works upto 15 lakhs, six months to one year experience firm can take works upto 20 lakhs, 12 to 24 months old firm can take works upto 40 lakhs.

[Emphasis Supplied] xxx"

xx"

9. Next, it is pertinent to refer to the Experience Certificate dated

February 11, 2026 produced by the petitioner firm with its bid documents.

The relevant extract of the said document is reproduced hereinafter:

hereinafter:-

"xxx

Sub: NOC, satisfaction certificate and two years of experience certificate issued by the concerned authority.

Regarding the above subject, it is written to you that during the year 2023-24

xxx This firm has been given the contract to collect user charges from the way bridges installed at the gates of the new vegetable market, Bahadurke Road, Ludhiana, falling under the Market Committee Ludhiana, for a pe period of two years from 01-09-2024 01 to 31-08-2026.

2026. The firm has no outstanding dues till now (17 months) and the firm's performance has been satisfactory."

10. Perusal of Clause 9(a) 9 of the instructions unambiguously

indicates that firms applying for collection of us user charges related works

would require to have experience of collecting the same in various

Government/Semi Semi-Government/PSUs for the last 02 years (upto December

31, 2025).

11. Perusal of Clause 9(b) unequivoca unequivocally indicates that firms

which had experience from 12 to 24 months could undertake works upto

Rs.40 lacs for works not related to collection of us user charges. Therefore, for

works of a value of more than Rs.40 lakhs,, experience of minimum 02

years was an essential criterion.

12. From the Experience Certificate annexed to the bid document

of the petitioner firm, it clearly transpires transpire that in the last two years the

petitioner had worked for respondent No.3 from January 01, 2024 till

March 31, 2024 and again from September 01, 2024 till December 31, 2024

and from January 01, 2025 to December 31, 2025. The period of work

performed after December 31, 2025 could not be counted as per the DNIT

as a part of Petitioner's Petitioner' experience term.

13. From the calculation of the above period, it unequivocally

transpires thatt the petitioner worked for the first three months in the year

2024 and then after a break of six months, it again worked for a period of

last three months in in 2024 and the petitioner worked for a period 12 months

in the year 2025. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be held that

the petitioner titioner worked for a period of last 02 years upto December 31, 2025.

14. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that no

infirmity/arbitrariness /arbitrariness was committedd by respondent No.2 in holding the

experience of the petitioner firm to be 01 plus years and consequently,

unresponsive/ineligible ineligible in the technical bid.

15. This Court cannot accept the contention on behalf of the

Petitioner that Clauses 9(a) 9 and (b) of the instructions have to be read

together to give a harmonious construction to the terms of the DNIT since

Clause 9(a) specifically mentions the parameters that were required to be

followed for enlistment of contractor firms for user charges collection

related works. Clause 9(a) will be rendered otiose if its scope is allowed to

be diluted by reading it with Clause 9(b) of the instructions.

16. Consequentl this Court is of the view that the present writ Consequently,

petition has been filed on frivolous grounds for stalling the tendering

process and is devoid of any merit.

17. T writ petition, being CWP No. The No.8194 of 2026 is accordingly

dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

18. Connected application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of

accordingly.

              (DEEPAK SIBAL)                                  (LAPITA BANERJI)
                  JUDGE                                            JUDGE

              APRIL 18,, 2026
              Shalini
              Whether speaking/reasoned:                      Yes/No
              Whether reportable:                             Yes/No