1997 Supreme(SC) 1473

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D. P. Wadhwa, Sujata .V. Manohar
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
Versus
PRITAM SINGH & SONS AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals No. 5813 of 1997 with No. 8259 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15795 of 1997),
decided on November 18, 1997.

Headnote:

Contract for construction of Tanda side - Reasons for rejecting lowest tender are also to be recorded on register of tenders - Under sub-para a tender other than lowest may be accepted only after obtaining approval of officer immediately superior to one who under Rules is competent to accept tender - In respect of acceptance of tenders for execution of work by contract Chief Engineer is highest authority who has full powers in that connection - Under para of Manual instructions as per Appendix are given regarding enlistment of contractors - Para sets out object of keeping such register of contractors - Object of this register is to enable an officer to communicate to his successor his assessment of local contractors worth based on his personal experience in a concise and systematic way - It also provides that while submitting comparative statement of tenders Divisional Officer should give against tenderers name his serial number as contained in register - Appendix to Manual contains instructions regarding enlistment of contractors and keeping up of a register of contractors in Buildings and Roads Branch Public Works Department - It sets out inter alia that there will be three classes of contractors - Class is entitled to tender of any individual works of any amount - Class is entitled to tender up to and Class up to - Among factors which require to be considered for enlistment clause of said Appendix requires financial position of contractor to be ascertained by bank reference only from a scheduled bank - Scheduled banks in Punjab are also listed - Clause provides that application for enlistment for all classes of contractors must be on a proper printed form which should consist of parts as per enclosed sample form - Clause provides that Class contractors will be enlisted by Superintending Engineer who should send their lists to other Superintending Engineers - Clause requires that contractors lists should be revised every year in April - Executive Engineer should give brief remarks about work carried out by each contractor and his behaviour during year - Contractors whose financial circumstances have suffered deterioration may be made to produce fresh evidence of suitability - Enlistment is annual - Clause which is relevant provides that tenders of listed contractors alone should be considered - Clause further provides that tenders may be received from unlisted contractors and entered in tenders register but should be rejected without consideration - Held, Court fail to see how respondent can have any grievance in that regard - High Court therefore was not right in holding that lowest tender was wrongly rejected by appellants - Argument advanced on behalf of respondent that if lowest tender is rejected approval should be sought from a higher officer by Chief Engineer has no merit when there was no question of considering tender of respondent - Among eligible tenderers lowest tender has been accepted - Therefore question of getting any approval from any higher officer does not arise even assuming that Chief Engineer required such approval - It is contended by respondent that after impugned judgment of High Court respondent was awarded tender by appellants and a certificate of enlistment was also granted - Subsequent actions of appellants are pursuant to directions given by High Court especially in view of High Courts findings that tender of respondent was wrongly rejected and directions given by High Court to consider that tender holding it to be lowest - Obviously it was as a result of these directions given by High Court that contract was subsequently given to respondent - This subsequent action of appellants is therefore not of any relevance as far as these two appeals are concerned - In fact according to appellants work of respondent is far from satisfactory and is nowhere near completion - Further observation made by High Court in impugned judgment that officers who dealt with case while granting contract to original Respondent should not be associated with this case and that officials of appellants had dealt with case in a casual manner in violation of their own instructions and principles of natural justice is also not warranted in circumstances of case - Appeals Allowed