Chandigarh, September 29
Just over a fortnight after Punjab Government’s decision to provide ‘atta’ at doorstep of the beneficiaries after “bypassing/replacing” the network of 17,000 fair price shops by “creating parallel company for delivery” was challenged, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that third party rights would not be created. The government had initially decided to deliver ‘atta’ at the doorstep from October 1.
The direction by the Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli came on a petition by NFSA Depot Holders’ Welfare Association through counsel Vijay K Jindal and Vipul Jindal. Among other things, it was contended that tenders were invited for grinding wheat and for home delivery of ‘atta’. The bids for deciding the delivery partner were opened and the government was in the process of evaluating. The bidders qualifying for the technical bids would then have to make financial bids for final selection
The petition was initially heard by the Single Bench as the matter concerned public distribution system. An interim order was also passed on September 13 to the effect that the “determination process may go on but no third party rights would be createdhellip;.”
The Division Bench asserted it was subsequently pointed out that the petition also involved challenge to the tender proceedings. As such the matter was placed before the Division Bench. Fixing the case for October 17, the Bench added notice had already been issued to the parties.
The Bench added the determination process may, in the meanwhile, continue. But third party rights would not be created with regard to the scope of work defined under a clause in the “request for proposal for the selection of flour ‘atta chakki’ mills for processing of NFSA/State PDS wheat into wheat flour for distribution under the home delivery of ration service”. The order would remain in force till the next date of hearing.
The association had contended that the action was “void ab initio” or having no legal effect from inception. It was, as such, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.