Back
2002 Supreme(Jhk) 420
High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : M. Y. EQBAL, H. S. PRASAD
VED NARAYAN SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND - Respondents
W. P. (STAMP) 1070 Of 2002
Decided On : 03/26/2002
DIPAK PRASAD, R.K.VERMA, S.B.GADODIA, V.N.Choudhary
The government has the right to cancel a tender notice or refuse any tender to protect the financial interest of the state. Judicial review in contractual matters is limited, and the court cannot interfere with the government's freedom of contract unless the decision is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality, or irrationality.
Headnote:
Tender Notice - Public Works - [PHED Act, Section 5(1)(a); Tender Rules, Section 3(2)(b)] - The court considered the cancellation of an earlier tender notice and the issuance of a fresh tender notice after clubbing all the works. It analyzed the authority of the Chief Engineer to issue the earlier tender notice, the constitution of the Tender Committee, and the subsequent decision-making process involving the Finance Department and the Government. The court concluded that the issuance of the impugned tender notice after clubbing all the works was neither arbitrary, illegal, nor irrational.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the opening of tenders and the allotment of work to any contractor in respect of a tender notice. The Public Health Engineering Department had initially divided the work into three groups, but later issued a fresh tender notice after clubbing all the works together. The petitioner alleged mala fide intentions and arbitrary actions by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the earlier tender notice and the issuance of the fresh tender notice after clubbing all the works were not arbitrary, illegal, or irrational. It directed the respondents to extend the time fixed in the impugned tender notice for the submission of tenders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the cancellation of the earlier tender notice and the issuance of the fresh tender notice after clubbing all the works were arbitrary, mala fide, and based on extraneous considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the government's decision to cancel the earlier tender notice and issue a fresh tender notice after clubbing all the works was not arbitrary, illegal, or irrational. It emphasized the government's right to protect the financial interest of the state and the limitations on the exercise of judicial review in contractual matters.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed, but the court directed the respondents to extend the time fixed in the impugned tender notice for the submission of tenders.
( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioner seeks andamus directing the respondents not to open tenders and/or allot the work to any Contractor in respect of tender notice dated 15-1-2002, which was published by combining the entire work in one Group and further for a direction directing the respondents to act in response to the earlier tender notice against which petitioner submitted his tender.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The Public Health Engineering Department (in short PHED) under the signature of Superintending Engineer, PHED, Urban Circle, Ranchi advertised in the newspaper on 12-9-2001 inviting tender for laying of 38" dia M. S. Pipe lines; (i) from Rukka Gate upto Vikas Vidyalaya, (ii) From Vikas Vidyalaya Gate to Jumar Bridge and (iii) from Jumar Bridge to Booty Sump. Thus, the entire work of laying of pipe lines from Rukka Gate to Booty Sump was divided into three groups. The estimated value of the work of the first group was Rs. 219. 019 Lakh, for the second work, the estimated value was Rs. 209. 492 lakh, and for the third work the estimated value was Rs. 154. 991 lakh. Subsequently two corrigenda were issued and published in the newspaper. The first corrigendum was published on 29-8-01 extending the date for submission of tender to 9-10-2001 and the date for supplying/selling tender paper was also extended upto 8-10-2001. The second corrigendum was issued and published in the Newspaper on 10-10-2001 again extending the date till 16-10-2001 for submission of tender and till 15-10-2001 for purchase of tender papers. It is contended by the petitioner that in the corrigendum also it was specifically mentioned that laying down of pipe lines from Rukka Gate to Booty Sump was divided into three groups. Photocopies of advertisement dated 12-9-01 and the two corrigenda have been annexed as Annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
( 3 ) PETITIONERs case is that in compliance of the tender notice he submitted tender paper in respect of the first Group i. e. for laying of 38" dia M. S. pipe line from Rukka Gate to Vikas Vidyalaya and deposited earnest money. It is further stated that according to the tender notice, the tender papers were to be opened on 16-10-2001, but instead of opening the tender on 16-10-2001 the Respondents mala fidely deferred the date for opening the tender paper. It is alleged that instead of opening of tender papers as per tender notice respondents kept the matter pending with an intention to help the favourite persons and finally cancelled the tender. Petitioner was informed vide letter dated 22-1-2001 that earlier tender which was in respect of three groups has been cancelled for unavoidable reasons. Respondents thereafter again advertised fresh tender notice in the Newspaper for the same work for laying of 38" dia M. S. pipes from Rukka Gate to Booty Sump. In the fresh Tender Notice, instead of 3 earlier groups, the entire work has been clubbed together and the period for completion of work has been fixed as 15 months. The contention of the petitioner is that according to the fresh 0 tender notice, earnest money was required to be deposited in the shape of National Savings Certificate and various other terms have been included in the tender notice. It is alleged by the petitioner that fresh tender notice is arbitrary and with mala fide intention to eliminate genuine tenderers who had submitted their tenders and to give opportunity to other contractors.
( 4 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating inter alia that it is true that the earlier tender notice was issued and the work was divided into three groups. However, in the process of tender the meeting of the Tender Committee was held and it was recommended that instead of three earlier Groups, the entire work should be clubbed together as they are the works of similar nature and in continuation. It is submitted that the recommendation of Tender Committee was later approved by the Govt. of Jh
