Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M. Chhaya, Ilesh J. Vora, JJ.
Jay Corporation – Petitioner
Versus
Karamsad Nagar Palika – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 18365 of 2019
Decided On : 27-08-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226 and 227 - E-Tender - Bid - Pre-bid meeting – Record further indicates that four bidders did attend the pre-bid meeting and L1 has been awarded the contract - As pointed out by the learned advocate for the respondent no.1-Municipality that the tender work was for stipulated period and it is declared before this Court that it is almost completed and bills have been raised and same are already paid - This Court finds that even in the limited jurisdiction of judicial review by this Court, no interference is called for and any interference after work is completed and bills have been paid, is on the contrary against the public interest
Facts of the case: Case of petitioner that along with tender, petitioner also deposited an amount as earnest money deposit. It is the case of the petitioner that the technical bid was opened - Petitioner had offered their bid at Rs.31.39 below the estimated cost of tender put by the respondent - Pre-bid meeting was not to be convened even as per the notice inviting tender and petitioner was never communicated about pre-bid meeting by the respondent and therefore, there was no question of attending any pre-bid meeting - Contended by petitioner that if remaining tenders were opened, work could have been awarded to the L1 and same would have save huge public money - It is alleged by petitioner that respondent no.1 is acting in bias manner and against the public interest for the reasons best known to them. It is also contended by the petitioner that respondent no.1 is public body is expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner and not in an arbitrary manner.
Findings of the court: Court is conscious of the fact that this Court has power of judicial review even in contract matters, however, in facts of this case, when condition to attend the pre-bid meeting being mandatory, which even in opinion of this Court was an essential condition and as the petitioner has not attended the same, having incurred disqualification because of non compliance of such mandatory condition, cannot now be permitted that too after majority of the tender work is already executed by the successful bidder and therefore, scope of judicial review is very narrow and in facts of this case, no such interference is called for.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
R.M. CHHAYA, J.
1. Heard Mr. N.L. Ramnani, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the respondent – Karamsad Nagarpalika.
2. By way of this petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
B. Your Lordships will be pleased to allow this petition by issuing a writ, of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the form of order of directions to the respondent no.1 Nagarpalika directing them to open all the bids which have qualified, including the bid of the petitioner, and after scrutiny of all the bids, L-1 bidder may be awarded the work order of work in question:
C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay further process of tender and awarding work order in connection with the work of Construction of Strom Water Drainage at various areas of Karamsad town, Karamsad dated 7.9.2019 invited vide NIT No.08-2019-20:
3. Following facts emerge from the record of the petition.
3.1. That the respondent no.1 Municipality invited E Tender for the work of Construction of Strom Water Drainage at various areas of Karamsad Town by a public notice. AS per the public notice, the tenders were to be submitted on-line on or before 16.09.2019. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm who claims to be “AA” Class Contractor submitted his E-Tender for the said work within the prescribed time limit. It is the case of the petitioner that the estimated cost of the tender was to of Rs.1,61,23,641.86 and non refundable tender fees was Rs.3600/-. It is the case of the petitioner that along with the tender, petitioner also deposited an amount of Rs.1,61,300/- as earnest money deposit. It is the case of the petitioner that the technical bid was opened on 19.09.2019. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner had offered their bid at Rs.31.39 below the estimated cost of tender put by the respondent. It is further the case of the petitioner that pre-bid meeting was not to be convened even as per the notice inviting tender and petitioner was never communicated about the pre-bid meeting by the respondent Nagarpalika and therefore, there was no question of attending any pre-bid meeting.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was awaiting response from the respondent no.1 Nagarpalika, however bid of the petitioner was not opened at all and only three bids were opened by respondent no.1 Nagarpalika and those bids were of the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 7. It is further the case of the petitioner that bid of the petitioner as well as three other respondents were not opened and therefore, the petitioner approached the respondent no.1 Nagarpalika to know the reason behind non-opening of his bids and no reason was disclosed by the respondent no.1 –Nagarpalika. It is further the case of the petitioner that petitioner was shocked and surprise to know that his bid were not opened as he did not participate in the pre-bid meeting. The petitioner also contended that even though the petitioner was tried to know the details about the pre-bid meeting but officers of the respondent no.1 Nagarpalika did not give any reply or response to the requests made by the petitioner and according to the petitioner, the conduct of the officer of the respondent Nagarpalika was to avoid the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that three bids which were opened by the respondent no.1- Nagarpalika are above the estimated cost put to the tender and according to the petitioner those tenders were not L1. It is contended by the petitioner that if remaining tenders were opened, work could have been awarded to the L1 and same would have save huge public money. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent no.1- Nagarpalika is acting in bias manner and against the public interest for the rea
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
