SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M.CHHAYA, R.P.DHOLARIA, JJ.
Ronak Traders - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 8935 of 2020
Decided on : 25-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR JAYESH A. KOTECHA, Adv.
For the Respondent: MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, MR. JAIMIN R. DAVE, MS HIRVA R DAVE, adv.

Point of Law: respondent authority has right to refuse the lowest or any other tender bid or bids submitted, provided its decision is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Pleased to Stay Implementation and Operation of New Tender - Prayed to issue a writ of mandamus and or appropriate direction by way of declaring petitioner as successfully bidder of old tender - Pleased to quashed and set aside decision on part of respondent no.2 to issued a new tender as same is illegal and arbitrary - Petitioner addressed a letter to respondent no.2 and without replying to same, a new tender notice came to be issued by respondent authorities - It is contended that such action of the respondent no.2 is arbitrary, illegal and beyond the authority of law - Alleged that respondent authorities have not bothered to reply to the communication dated 24.06.2020 which speaks volume of ill intention on the part of the respondent no.2 - It is case of the petitioner that in first tender, every bidder had quoted their rates and petitioner was lowest bidder - Respondent no.3 had quoted nil (0) rates which suggests that respondent no.2 is trying to assist someone - Rates of earlier bidding are open to access by third party and prospective bidders and hence, there are all probable chances that lowest bid may be overreached - It is contended that action on the part of the respondent no.2 is ill-action and dehors the well settled principles of law –

Finding of the Court: Court finds that action taken by respondent authority is in no way arbitrary, illegal or malafide. The respondent no.2 authority has the responsibility of regulating the traffic in the city of Rajkot, which is declared as one of the smart city of India and is a major commercial hub of Gujarat and such important public duty has to be performed by respondents no.1 and 2 and therefore, the work order which is given in favour of respondent no.3 does not require to be interfered with - Only because the petitioner had quoted lower rate in pursuance to the cancelled e-tender notice it cannot be said that the action of the respondent authority is in any manner bad or dehors of law - Petitioner has also not mentioned the date of the earlier e-tender notice in petition claiming to be unaware about the same even though the petitioner had knowledge of the same as the said tender notice was also published in daily newspaper which has wide circulation. Overall, it is found that the respondent authority has acted in legal and bonafide manner and therefore, all contentions raised by petitioner deserves to be negative –

Result: Petition Dismissed

ORDER :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. Heard Mr. Jayesh Kotecha, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP for respondents no.1 and 2 and Mr. Jaimin Dave, learned advocate for respondent no.3.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs -

    “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and or any other appropriate writ/order/direction by way of declaring the petitioner as successfully bidder of old tender “2020-2021” (ANNEXURE-A) and further be pleased to quashed and set aside the decision on the part of respondent no.2 to issued a new tender dated 01/07/2020 (ANNEXURED) as the same is illegal and arbitrary.

(B) That till the pendency of the present petition as well as the final hearing, your lordship may be pleased to stay the implementation and operation of the new tender dated 01/07/2020 (ANNEXURED), ion the interest of justice.”

3. The following facts emerge from the record of the petition -

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that through e-tender notice dated 21.05.2020 issued by the respondent no.2, for providing vehicles for towing for the year 2020-2021, the petitioner applied for the same along with other bidders, one of it being respondent no.3 Rushiraj Travels and Giriraj Travels. When the petition was filed, it was alleged that respondents are in the verge of diluting the tender bid proceedings in favour of some third person due to the vested interest.

3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that on such apprehension, the petitioner addressed a letter to respondent no.2 on 24.06.2020 and without replying to the same, a new tender notice dated 01.07.2020 came to be issued by the respondent authorities. It is contended that such action of the respondent no.2 is arbitrary, illegal and beyond the authority of law.

3.3 It is also alleged that the respondent authorities have not bothered to reply to the communication dated 24.06.2020 which speaks volume of ill intention on the part of the respondent no.2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the first tender, every bidder had quoted their rates and the petitioner was the lowest bidder. The respondent no.3 had quoted nil (0) rates which suggests that respondent no.2 is trying to assist someone. It is the case of the petitioner that rates of the earlier bidding are open to access by the third party and prospective bidders and hence, there are all probable chances that the lowest bid may be overreached. It is contended that the action on the part of the respondent no.2 is ill-action and dehors the well settled principles of law. On the aforesaid grounds, the petition is preferred.

4. In response to the notice issued by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2020, the learned Government Pleader informed this Court on 18.08.2020 that respondent no.3 has been awarded the contract and hence, respondent no.3 was added as party respondent vide order dated 18.08.2020. In response to notice issued by this Court, the respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit. It is contended by respondent no.2 that the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition and that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent authority. It is contended that in absence of any fundamental or legal right accrued in favour of the present petitioner, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It is contended that the contentions and allegations attributed by the petitioner are absolutely baseless, unsubstantiated and frivolous. Denying all the contentions, it is contended that the respondent no.2 floated tender dated 21.05.2020 and also published the said notice in local newspaper of 21.05.2020 and therefore, it is not an undated E-tender notice as alleged by the petitioner. The respondent no.2 has further contended that the last date of filing of the tender was scheduled on 22.06.2020 and the tenders were to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top