Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.S.Shah
HINDUSTAN DORR-OLIVER LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
VADODARA MUNICIPAL corporation - Respondent
S.C.A. 2479 of 1998
Decided On : 05/15/1998
The Court must, therefore, proceed on the footing that the entire revised price bid of respondent No. 2, including the offer of 2.5% discount if both the contracts were awarded to the respondent No. 2, was known to the petitioner. Even then the petitioner did not offer any additional or special discount, if both the contracts were to be awarded to the petitioner. In fact, there is no letter from the petitioner to the respondent Corporation of any date prior to or on the date of meeting of the Standing Committee making the grievance that its representative was prevented from giving such an additional or special discount by the Municipal Commissioner and the City Engineer. Such a grievance is made for the first time before this Court, through an amendment which was of course given on 27th March, 1998, before issuance of the notice by this Court. Hence, there is no substance in any of the aforesaid grievances.
[Para 13]
(b) Constitution of India, 1950 - Writ petition - Contract - Tender called for follow up Negotiation - Discount offer not disclose - Grant of contract - Arbitrary and disadvantageous - Held, cannot be stigmatised as arbitrary.
it must be held that the procedure followed by the respondent-Corporation is not calling upon the parties to submit their final bids on the same date was not the best possible procedure. However, the Court would not interfere with the decision of an authority merely because the best possible procedure was not followed.
It, therefore, appears to the Court that while the conduct of the respondent- Corporation cannot be stigmatised as arbitrary, the respondent-Corporation acting through the Standing Committee or the Municipal Commissioner did not act in a prudent manner, in not requiring the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 to submit their final bids on the same date and at the same time.
[Para 15]
(c) Constitution of India, 1950 - Contract - Discretion & Prudence exercised by corporation to grant contract - Judicial intervention to what extend called for - Held, the Court would not like to interfere with the decision of Standing Committee.
So also, a prudent man acting in place of the Standing Committee, inclined to give due weightage to the special discount offered by Respondent No. 2 might have required both the parties to indicate such special discount, before taking the final decision, especially because both the parties are considered by the Corporation to be equally competent. However, since imprudence is not necessarily arbitrariness, this Court would not like to interfere with the decision of the Standing Committee.
[Para 18]
( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Company has prayed for a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing and setting aside Resolution Nos. 4 and 5 dated 19-3-1998 passed by the Standing Committee of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Corporation") and also to direct the corporation to award and accept both the contracts in question to the petitioner in respect of Atladara and Gajarawadi Sewage Treatment Plants.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing of the present petition, as averred by the petitioner, are as under :-
( 3 ) THE petitioner-Company is engaged in the business and activities of environmental and Solid-Liquid separation activities and DAP Fertilizers including giving treatment to Sewage-Water Treatment Plant etc. The petitioner-Company has collaboration with Dorr-Oliver Inc. of U. S. A.
( 4 ) IN July 1997 the Corporation had issued a public notice inviting tenders for repairing works of mechanical parts of Sewage Treatment Plants at Atladara/ gajarawadi and to put the said plants into operational condition. Four parties submitted their tenders in response to the notice. However, two of them were rejected as they were not fulfilling the minimum requisite criteria for the technical bids. Hence, only the petitioner and respondent No. 2-Company (M/s. Hydraulic General engineers) remained in the fray. A Technical Committee of the Corporation sought for various technical clarifications and explanations from time to time in respect of the technical bids submitted by the parties. In view of the technical clarifications and explanations submitted by the parties, the Corporation required both the parties, i. e. , the petitioner-Company and respondent No. 2-Company to submit their revised price bids. The revised price bids of the parties were opened on 9-12-1997. On 12-12-1997, the petitioner-Company raised objections to the changes made by respondent No. 2-Company in the tenders. On 16-1-1998, the petitioner submitted its final revised offer in respect of both the tenders. Hence, respondent No. 2 also submitted its final revised offer. The comparative final revised bids offered by the parties were as under :- atladara Plant Gajarawadi Plant petitioner Rs. 1,91,07,398 Rs. 2,04,43,254 resp. No. 2 Rs. 1,94,51,250 Rs. 2,02,25,025
( 5 ) THE petitioner-Company has stated that the price offered by respondent No. 2 came to be known to the petitioner later on through newspaper report dated 17-3-1998 stating that the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation had made recommendations to the Standing Committee for accepting the petitioners tender for Atladara Plant and the tender of respondent No. 2 for Gajarawadi Plant. However, the Standing Committee of the Corporation at its meeting held on 19-3-1998 decided to award both the contracts, i. e. , for Atladara and Gajarawadi Plants in favour of respondent No. 2 as respondent No. 2 reduced its prices as is reflected in the impugned resolutions of the Standing Committee produced at Annexure "a" to the petition. It is averred, on the basis of the newspaper report, that the Municipal commissioners recommendation for awarding contract to each party was to ensure that the work can be completed at the earliest and better quality of work can be obtained from two separate Companies. The petitioner raised objections against the aforesaid decision of the Standing Committee by letter dated 23-3-1998 sent to the corporation (Annexure "f" ). It is submitted that the representative of the petitioner- company met the Municipal Commissioner and the City Engineer on 24-3-1998, but in view of their inability to do anything in the matter on account of the decision of the Standing Committee, the petitioner has no other alternative but to challenge the decision of the Standing Committee by filing the present petition.
( 6 ) THE petitioner has challenged the decision dated 19-3-1998 of th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
