Back
1993 Supreme(Cal) 96
High Court Of Calcutta
A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, N. K. BATABYAL
RASHMI MEHATA - Appellant
Versus
CALCUTTA PORT TRUST - Respondent
Matter 3842 Of 1991
Decided On : 03/04/1993
A.N.SHAW, B.CHATTERJI, BITHIKA MONDAL, SUHIT ROY CHOWDHURY
The terms of a tender include the terms of the notice inviting tender (NIT) as also of the terms and conditions of the standard lease form.
Headnote:
LEASE - GRANT OF LEASE - CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY - FINANCIAL SOLVENCY - APPLICANT'S MONTHLY INCOME INSUFFICIENT TO COVER RENT PAYABLE - REJECTION OF TENDER NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant submitted a tender for the grant of lease of a plot of land owned by the respondent, Calcutta Port Trust Authorities. The appellant's tender was rejected on the ground that she did not furnish the required particulars about her financial solvency. The appellant challenged the rejection of her tender by filing a writ petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the rejection of the appellant's tender was not arbitrary or capricious. The Court found that the appellant did not furnish the required particulars about her financial solvency, and that her monthly income was insufficient to cover the rent payable under the proposed lease.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the appellant's tender was arbitrary or capricious.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the respondent authorities were entitled to insist on individual tenderers with business and of financial solvency in the matter of selection of lessee. The Court also held that the appellant's monthly income was insufficient to cover the rent payable under the proposed lease.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed the order of the lower court rejecting the appellant's tender.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18th of June, 1992 dismissing the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant in Matter No. 3842 of 1991. The respondent, Calcutta Port Trust Authorities in January, 1991 issued Notice inviting Tenders (NIT in short) for grant of lease of two separate plots of land situated at Boat Canal near its junction with Alipore Avenue, Calcutta. The appellant submitted tenders along with supporting papers as required for obtaining lease of plot "a" category of land measuring 700 sq. mt. within the stipulated time. The rate quoted by the appellant was the highest but the appellant received a letter dated 13th April, 1991 from the respondent No. 3 by which she was informed that her tender was not accepted and she was advised to take refund of the earnest money. According to the appellant, the rejection of the tender by the appellant was arbitrary, illegal and capricious. A lawyer's letter was sent on behalf of the appellant to the Port Authorities to rescind the letter sent by the Port Authorities rejecting the tender submitted by the appellant. Thereafter, she filed a writ application in this Hon'ble Court for appropriate reliefs. The writ application was contested by the respondents. The learned Trial Judge has been pleased to held that the respondents had good reason to reject the tender of the appellant.
( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned Trial Judge the appellant has come before this Court. The appeal is also contested by the respondents.
( 3 ) IT has been argued by the Learned Lawyer for the appellant that the NIT (marked Annexure "a" to the Memo of Appeal) does not lay down any condition that the applicant cannot be a private individual. His client has emptied with all the terms and conditions of the lease as contained in the NIT and therefore the action of the respondent authorities in sending the letter of rejection dated 13th April, 1991 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and capricious, specially in the context that the rate quoted by her was the highest. In paragraph 4 of the written objection filed by the respondents it has been stated that the condition of the NIT along with the prescribed application form for lease required certain essential particulars which were not furnished by the appellant and as such the tender of the appellant was rejected. The Learned Lawyer for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to Column VII of the application form for lease (marked Annexure "b") to the writ petition which reads as follows :"vii. If the applicant is an individual, name and address of his/her father/husband and also the names and addresses of his/her heirs who are likely to succeed him/her. What is the amount of money invested in the business".
( 4 ) IT has been submitted that the Port Commissioner invited application from individuals with commercial connection as the deal was a purely commercial one. As no particulars about the mount of money invested in the business by the appellant were furnished, therefore, the respondent authorities could not assess the financial solvency of the tenderer. From the Income Tax Clearance Certificate annexed with the writ petition, it appears that the average annual income of he tenderer during the three years preceding 1990-91 was roughly Its. 30,000/- but the monthly rent payable under the proposed lease is Rs. 24,500/- and odd. So it is obvious that the current income of the tenderer was not sufficient to cover the liability to pay rent under the lease. It is true that a person's financial solvency cannot be judged by his current income. The assets of the person concerned are also to be looked into to judge the general financial solvency of the person. However, it is obvious that the required particulars were not furnished by the tenderer in the prescribed form the application for lease. It has been argued by the Learned Lawye
