Back
2004 Supreme(Guj) 310
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.N.Patel, J.N.Bhatt
BHAVNA WATER SUPPLIERS - Appellant
Versus
NOTIFIED AREA OFFICER - Respondent
S.C.A.15264 of 2003
Decided On : 04/28/2004
Headnote:
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitions under Article of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the allotment of tender for providing drinking water at Ship Breaking Yard - Petitioner is providing drinking water at Ship Breaking yard since contract with the petitioner came to an end on - Petitioner was supplying water at the rate - Petition Special Civil Application - It is alleged that there were certain pre-conditions mentioned in the tender notice which inter alia provide that the bidder must have its own tractors trailers tankers Petitioners had filled up the tender and submitted within time limit stipulated in the tender notice - Respondent allotted the tender work to respondent being the lowest bidder - Details of conditions of tender are referred in the copy of Tender Form which is at Annexure to the memo of petition - It is contended that Special Civil may be treated as the main matter as another Special Civil Application also raises same contentions - Petitioners have raised an objection to the effect that The Excellent is not fulfilling all the pre-conditions mentioned in the tender notice - Held, petitions being Special Civil Application and one Civil Suit bearing civil suit of and one Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order of interim injunction below were filed either by the petitioner or by similarly situated another bidder could not fetch any favourable order in their favour and therefore one more attempt on their part by way of filing this writ petition has been made by the petitioner - Prima facie supply of water is not a work of complicated in nature like construction or electrical work - There is also a remarkable price difference in the rate. The petitioner was supply water at the rate whereas the respondent - Excellent is supplying water at the rate of per MT on no profit no loss basis - Difference in price is an eye catching difference - Petitioner was given contract to supply drinking water as an emergency situation and that too, without inviting any tenders - Petitioner cannot take advantage of this situation. - Petitioner was supplying water under this emergency situation drinking water at the rate For the first time the respondent authority has given tender notice in the month of inviting tenders for drinking water which is at Annexure to the petition. The tenders including that of the petitioner as well as respondent were by Advisory Board of members of high ranking Government officers and considering overall facts and circumstances including the price offered by the respondent and the petitioner offer of the respondent being the lowest one, has been given the work contract to supply drinking water in the area of Socia Ship Breaking Yard - procedural impropriety or defect in awarding work contract to the respondent nor could we found any illegality or irrationality in the decision-taking process by the Advisory Board who the No is alleged and abuse of power by respondent - petitions are devoid of any merit and substance and deserve to be dismissed. - Court does not find any justification to interfere in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article of the Constitution in the matter of award of contract of supply of water - Petitions are dismissed.
( 1 ) IN these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the allotment of tender for providing drinking water at Socia Ship Breaking Yard. The petitioner is providing drinking water at Socia Ship Breaking yard since 1997. The contract with the petitioner came to an end on 31st March, 2003. The petitioner was supplying water at the rate of Rs. 33. 00 per MT.
( 2 ) THE tender notice bearing no. 1/02/03 dated 7. 3. 2003 was issued by respondent no. 1 for supply of water for one year whereby the bidders were to supply their sealed tenders on or before 20th March, 2003. The tender notice given in newspaper is at Annexure "d" to the memo of the petition, Special Civil Application no. 15264 of 2003. It is alleged that there were certain pre-conditions mentioned in the tender notice which inter alia provide that the bidder must have its own borewell, tractors, trailers, tankers etc. The petitioners had filled up the tender and submitted within time limit stipulated in the tender notice. The respondent no. 1 allotted the tender work to respondent no. 4 being the lowest bidder. The details of conditions of tender are referred in the copy of Tender Form which is at Annexure "c" to the memo of petition No. 15276 of 2003. It is contended that Special Civil No. 15264 of 203 may be treated as the main matter as another Special Civil Application No. 15276 of 2003 also raises same contentions. D
( 3 ) THE petitioners have raised an objection to the effect that The Excellent Yuvak Mandal (the respondent no. 4) is not fulfilling all the pre-conditions mentioned in the tender notice. As per the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 does not have its own borewells, nor they have tractors, tractor trailers and tankers. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner (of Special Civil Application No. 15264 of 2003) with another bidder, namely Chandrasinh G. Gohil (who is petitioner of Special Civil Application no. 15276 of 2003) had also raised the same objection vide letter dated 28. 3. 2003 against the supply of tender form to the respondent no. 4 i. e. Shri Excellent Yuvak Mandal. It is also contended by the petitioner that without considering the objections and representations of the petitioner bidder as well as another bidder, the respondent authority has, arbitrarily issued tender form to Shri Excellent Yuvak Mandal i. e. respondent no. 4 who has agreed to provide water at the rate of Rs. 20/per MT. It may be noted at this stage that the petitioner was providing water since 1997 at the rate of Rs. 33. 00 per MT. It is also admitted in the memo of petition in para 3. 11 to the effect that the respondent no. 1 authority had written a letter dated 29th May, 2003 (contract with the petitioner came to an end with effect from 31st March, 2003, despite this fact, the petitioner was supplying water to Socia Ship Breaking Yard) asking whether the petitioner is prepared to supply water at the rate of Rs. 20. 50 per MT.
( 4 ) THE petitioner was not ready to supply water at the rate of Rs. 20. 50 per MT and, therefore, writ petition bearing Special Civil Application no. 7920 of 2003 was preferred before this Court, wherein this Court had directed the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the representation vide their letter dated 26. 8. 2003. The said reply is at Annexure "m" to the memo of petition. Similarly, one more petition bearing Special Civil Application no. 14125 of 2003 was filed before this Court by another bidder, namely Chandrasinh G. Gohil, wherein the second bidder raised an objection against the respondent no. 4 that the respondent no. 4 is not having any vehicle of its own and yet the said respondent might be given the contract. The said petition was disposed of as withdrawn with observations that it was premature, with further observation that if th
