Back
1998 Supreme(P&H) 946
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jawahar Lal Gupta and N.C.Khichi JJ.
Bet-on Projects
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 9373 of 1998,
Decided On : JULY 30, 1998
A tender must be unconditional, conform to the terms of obligation, be made in the proper form, and the person making the tender must be able and willing to perform his obligations.
Headnote:
TENDER - REJECTION - ARBITRARINESS - FAIRNESS - NEGOTIATIONS - NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES - [PUNJAB LOTTERY RULES, 1998 - RULE 10] - The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's tender was not arbitrary or unfair as it was based on legally tenable reasons. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to be called for negotiations as its tender had been rejected. The court further held that the writ petition was incompetent as necessary parties had not been impleaded.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lottery agent, submitted a tender for six sets of 28 weekly lottery schemes. The tender was rejected by the Director of Punjab State Lotteries on the ground that it was incomplete and did not comply with the prescribed conditions. The petitioner challenged the rejection of its tender by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's tender was not arbitrary or unfair as it was based on legally tenable reasons. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to be called for negotiations as its tender had been rejected. The court further held that the writ petition was incompetent as necessary parties had not been impleaded.
Issues: 1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's tender was arbitrary or unfair? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be called for negotiations? 3. Whether the writ petition was incompetent due to non-joinder of parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's tender was not arbitrary or unfair as it was based on legally tenable reasons. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to comply with the prescribed conditions, such as attaching the balance sheet and providing proof of experience. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to be called for negotiations as its tender had been rejected. The court noted that only four parties whose tenders were found to be in order were called for negotiations. 3. The court held that the writ petition was incompetent as necessary parties had not been impleaded. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to implead the other parties who had submitted valid tenders.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and awarded costs to the respondents.
1. The Director of Punjab State Lotteries invited sealed tenders for six sets of 28 weekly lottery schemes. The tenders could be submitted by "bona fide lottery agents of sound financial standing having the experience in the lottery trade in the capacity of sole selling agents. . . . . . . . working directly for a State Government at least for a period of two years. . . . . " There were six sets of lotteries and separate applications had to be submitted "accompanied by earnest money of rupees twenty eight lacs . . . . . . . per set in the shape of bank draft." The tenders had to be submitted in the prescribed proforma by 12.30 p.m. on May 22, 1998. It was stipulated that "the offers received thereafter or without earnest money shall be considered invalid. Any conditional/incomplete tender shall be rejected." The Director had also reserved the right to "accept or reject any or all tenders without giving any reason." With the notice even the format for submission of the tender had been provided. It was specifically mentioned that latest income-tax assessment order and the latest balance sheet be attached. In the format a note was given that "any tender not giving complete information. . . . . . ." shall be considered "invalid."
2. The petitioner and various other parties submitted their respective tenders. The tenders were considered by a Committee consisting of three officers. Even legal opinion was obtained. On consideration of the matter, the Committee which had met on May 26, 1998, rejected the tender submitted by the petitioner. The decision was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated June 11, 1998. A copy of this letter has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the rejection of its tender, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is alleged that the action of the respondents in rejecting the tender without assigning any reason and in not allowing the petitioner to participate in the negotiations was arbitrary and unfair. On this basis, the petitioner prays that the order dated June 11, 1998, by which its tender had been rejected be quashed and that the respondents be restrained from entertaining tenders of the other persons without allowing it to participate in the negotiations.
3. A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been pleaded by way of preliminary objection that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and that it is estopped from making any claim as it has already withdrawn the earnest money of rupees twenty eight lacs in response to the impugned order. Still further, it has been specifically pleaded that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. On merits, it has been pointed out that the petitioner had not submitted a complete application form. The petitioner had not attached its balance sheet with the tender. In fact, the balance sheet of one M/s. Smile Agency had been attached. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner had not furnished any proof of having worked directly with a State Government for a period of two years in the trade of lotteries. It had also produced a copy of an agreement dated June 15, 1994, which did not show that the petitioner had the actual experience of working.On this basis, the Committee took the view that the petitioners application was liable to be rejected. Still further, it has been pointed out that the claims of the parties that had submitted valid tenders were actually considered. Negotiations were held and nobody was allotted the rights of a sole selling agent at a rate lower than the one offered by the petitioner.
4. It may be noticed that the case was listed for hearing before the Bench on July 24, 1998. A request was made by Mr. Saron that the case be adjourned so as to enable him to file the reapplication. The request was accepted and time as prayed for by the counsel was given to him. However, in spite of th
