Back
2006 (1) JLJ 52
(SUPREME COURT)
Miss Ruma Pal and C.K. Thakkcr, JJ.
Makhija Construction and Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. (M/s.) v. Indore Development Authority and others
Civil Appeals No. 2694 and 2695 of 2005; against judgements of (M.P. High Court passed in LPA No. 87 and 88 of 2000;
Decided on 19.4.2005.
(2) Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 (M.P.) -- S.86-Regulations for transfer of property and other Ancillary Matters, 1987 -Reg. 33 -- tender notice for allotment of land for educational activities tenderer having no such experience - cannot make any tender:
The appellant‘s grievance is that his tender for allotment of land reserved for educational use was not accepted by the respondent-authority. The tender notice was published on 22nd September 1993. It invited tenders from "registered institutions who manage educational activities or are constituted for this purpose"... Because the appellant did not have any experience of managing an educational institution, its tender was rejected. [Para 2
Held: The appellant admittedly has no experience in educational activities of any one. The question then is -- was it constituted for educational purposes? Out of 67 objects mentioned in its Memorandum of Association, the main objects of the appellant were to carryon the business of constructing building roads, bridges, etc. and to act as a supplier or hardware, paints. sanitary fittings, construction material and so on. [Para 12 The fact that the appellant had bid the highest was, in the circumstances, immaterial as the object of allotting the land to an educational institution was not the making of profit. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, wrong in construing the advet1isement dated 22nd September, 1993 in the manner he did and the appellate Court erred in dismissing Crescent‘s appeal. In our opinion, the appellant was not competent to participate in the tender. [Para 15
(3) Civil P.C.,1908 -- S.11-d`res judicata -- also binds co-defendents or cod`respondents. 58 1A 158, (1974) 2 SCC 151, AIR 1995 SC 1205, AIR 1966 SC 1061 and AIR 1997 SC 808 relied on. 1986 (Supp.) SSC 501, (1987) ISCC 213, (1983) 4 SCC 645 and (1990) 4 SCC 207 distinguished. [Paras 16, 17. 19 & 20
¼1½ fufonk& &‘kS{kf.kd mi;ksx ds fy, Hkwfe dk vkcaVu& &vf/kdre cksyh& &cksyh yxkus okys dks ‘kSf{kd xfrfof/k;ksa dk dksbZ Hkh vuqHko ugha rc egRoghu gSA ¼2½ uxj rFkk xzke fuos‘k vf/kfu;e] 1973 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 86& &laifÙk varj.k vkSj vU; vkuq‘kafxd fo"k;ksa ds fy, fofu;e] 1987& &fofu-33& &‘kS{kf.kd xfrfof/k;ksa ds fy, Hkwfe ds vkcaVu gsrq fufonk lwpuk& &fufonkdrkZ dks ,slk vuqHko ugha& &fufonk ugha dj ldrkA vihykFkhZ dh f‘kdk;r gS fd ‘kS{kf.kd mi;ksx ds fy, vkjf{kr Hkwfe ds vkcaVu ds fy, mldh fufonk çR;FkhZ çkf/kdj.k }kjk Lohdkj ugha dh xbZA fufonk lwpuk 22 flrEcj 1993 dks çdkf‘kr dh xbZ FkhA mlesa ,slh ^^jftLVªhÑr laLFkkvksa** ls tks ‘kS{kf.kd xfrfof/k;ksa dk çca/k djrh gSa ;k bl ç;kstu ds fy, xfBr gS** fufonk vkeaf=r dh xbZ Fkh*A------------D;ksafd vihykFkhZ dks f‘k{kk laLFkk ds çca/ku dk dksbZ vuqHko ugha Fkk] mldh fufonk ukeatwj dj nh xbZA ¼iSjk 2½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % LohÑr :i ls] vihykFkhZ dks fdlh Hkh çdkj dh ‘kS{kf.kd xfrfof/k dk dksbZ vuqHko ugha gSA fQj ;g ç‘u gS fd D;k og ‘kS{kf.kd ç;kstu ds fy, xfBr gS\ mlds laxe Kkiu esa mfYyf[kr 67 mís‘;ksa esa ls vihykFkhZ ds eq[; mís‘; gS bekjrksa] lM+dksa] iqyksa vkfn ds fuekZ.k dk dkjksckj djuk rFkk gkMZos;j] jax] lSfuVjh miLdj] fuekZ.k lkexzh vkfn ds çnk;drkZ ds :i esa dk;Z djukA ¼iSjk 12½ ;g rF; fd vihykFkhZ us vf/kdre cksyh yxkbZ Fkh] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa egRoghu Fkk D;ksafd f‘k{kk laLFkk dks Hkwfe vkcafVr djus dk mís‘; ykHk çkIr djus dk ugha FkkA vr% ftl jhfr esa fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us foKkiu fnukad 22 flarcj 1993 dk vFkkZUo;u fd;k og xyr Fkk rFkk vihy U;k;ky; us ØslsaV dh vihy [kkfjt dj xyrh dhA gekjh jk; esa vihykFkhZ fufonk esa Hkkx ysus ds fy, l{ke ugha FkkA ¼iSjk 15½ ¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 11& &iwoZ U;k;& ≶&çfroknhx.k vFkok lg&çR;FkhZx.k dks Hkh vkc)dj gSA 58 vkb , 158] ¼1974½ 2 ,l lh lh 151] , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 1205] , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 1061 rFkk , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 808 voyafcrA 1986 ¼lIyh½ ,l lh lh 501] ¼1987½1 ,l lh lh 213] ¼1983½ 4 ,l lh lh 645 rFkk ¼1990½4 ,l lh lh 207 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 16] 17] 19 ,oa 20½
Ruma Pal J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant's grievance is that his tender for allotment of land reserved for educational use was not accypted by the respondent-authority. The tender notice was published on 22nd September 1993. It invited tenders from "registered institutions who manage educational activities or are constituted for this purpose" for 10.340 sq. mtrs. of land reserved for educational purposes under the respondent-authority's scheme. Of the tenders submitted the three tenderers were- the appellant, Jagriti Bal Mandir Society (here-referred to as 'Jagriti') and Crescent Public school (here-after referred to as 'Crescent') who bid Rs. 161 per Sq.m., Rs. 201 per Sq.m. and Rs. 177.60 per sq.m. respectively. The appellant, as its name suggests, is a construction company. However, one of its objects in its Memorandum of Association is claimed to be to construct and establish schools. Because the appellant did not have any experience of managing an educational institution, its tender was rejected on 18th December 1993 and, the respondent authority allotted the land in equal halves to Jagriti and Crescent.
3. The appellant and Jagriti filed writ petitions in the Gujarat High Court. The appellant's grievance was that he was the highest tenderer having quoted for the land at Rs. 161 per sq. mtr. and that his tender was rejected unreasonably. Jagriti's glievance was that it had bid for the land at Rs. 201 per sq. mtr. which was higher than the bid of Crescent which had offered only Rs. 177.60 per sq. mtr. Jagriti, therefore, claimed that the whole of the land should have been made available to it.
4. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated 4th March 1998 by which the Court directed the respondent-authority to consider the representations of the appellant and Jagriti. The matter was reconsidered by respondent No.1 and again by resolution dated 7th December 1998, the decision taken earlier was re-affirmed. Pursuant to the decision, a letter of allotment was issued to Jagriti and Crescent.
5. This led to a second round of litigation by the appellant and Jagriti reiterating their earlier stand. Both the writ petitions were allowed by a common order on 29th February 2000. The learned single Judge was of the view that the requirement in the tender that the tender would be accepted only from registered institutions which are engaged in educational activities had an alternative which was ignored by the respondent No.1, namely, that the institutions constituted for that purpose could also participate. Since the appellant's memorandum showed that the appellant was constituted, inter-alia, for setting up schools, it could not be disqualified on this ground. The respondent no. 1 was accordingly required to decide the representations of the appellant and Jagriti afresh with a speaking order without being influenced by the earlier recommendations or earlier resolutions. 6. Three appeals were preferred from this order before the Division Bench. One appeal was by Jagriti and two by Crescent. Jagriti's appeal was dismissed for default. One of Crescent's appeal was dismissed on the ground that the single Judge had done substantial justice.
7. The respondent No. 1-authority then reconsidered the matter again and by a resolution dated 18th September 2000, in keeping with the observations of the High Court, held that the appellant was competent to tender and accept the tender. Its tender was accepted and allotment of the entire plot of 10,340 sq. mtrs. was made to the appellant.
8. immediately after this, Jagriti's Letters Patent Appeal was restored and ultimately after hearing the parties allowed by the impugned order. The learned single Judge's decision was set aside and the respondent No.1 was given the liberty to implement and give effect to the advertisement published by it on 22nd September 1993.
9. The appellant has challenged the decision of the Division Bench contending that the dismissal of Crescent's Letters P
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
