Back
2011 (2) JLJ 426
Shantanu Kemkar and A.M. Naik, JJ.
Balaji Services (Mis.)
Versus.
Airport Authority of India and others
Writ Petition No. 6697 of 2010 (Indore);
Decided on 1.7.2011.
Held : Admittedly, the tender in question was allotted to respondent No.3 by respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-12 dated 11.5.2010 for a period of one year, which stood expired on 11.5.2011. This being so, the relief pertaining to quashment of Annexure P-12 has been rendered infructuous. [Para 6]
Without entering into this controvery, it is hereby observed that since the period of contract awarded to respondent No.3 is already over, the relief seeking direction for consideration of tender of the petitioner has also been rendered infructuous. [Para 7]
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- scope of -- facts give rise to legal grounds n suchfacts not mentioned in paragraph 5 of facts prescribed format of writ petition -- legal grounds without factual foundation need not be necessarily considered -- same cannot be allowed to plead.
Held : Format of the writ petition has been provided under M.P. High Court Rules, 2008. Paragraph 5 of the prescribed format obliges the writ petitioner to provide all the relevant facts, which according to him, give rise to the legal grounds in his support.
Paragraph 6 of the prescribed writ petition format expects the writ petitioner to raise the legal grounds arising from the facts described in the preceding paragraph 5. Legal grounds without factual foundation need not be necessarily considered. On perusal, we find that there is absolutely no iota in paragraph 5 that respondent No.3 was ineligible on account of non-compliance of clauses (c) and (m) (supra). Petitioner despite such deficiency in pleadings did not choose to plead the requisite fact by way of amendment.
[Para 9
(3) Constitution of India -;- Art. 226 -::- scope of -- car parking contract surrendered by petitioner under protest -- fresh tender allowed to respondent No.3 -- difference amount demanded from petitioner -- fresh tender and demand notice challenged -- objection of promissory estoppel raised by respondent No.3 -- this objection not pleaded -- without appropriate and complete pleadings and evidence -- such issue cannot be decided in writ petition -- liberty of civil suit granted. [Paras 2, 3 & 10]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && bl mica/k ds v/khu ;kfpdk && lafonk vikLr djus rFkk fufonk ij fopkj djus ds funs‘k fn, tkus dh lgk;rk pkgh xbZ && lafonk dh dkykof/k lekIr && lgk;rk fu"Qy gks xbZA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % Lohdkjr%] iz‘uxr fufonk izR;FkhZ dz- 3 dks izR;FkhZ dz- 1 }kjk fnukad 11-5-2010 dks ,d o"kZ dh dkykof/k ds fy, mikca/k ih&12 }kjk vkcafVr dh xbZ Fkh] ftldk 11-5-2011 dks volku gks x;kA ;g gksus ls] mikca/k ih&12 ds vikLr fd, tkus ls lacaf/kr lgk;rk fu"Qy O;Dr dh tkrh gSA
¼iSjk 6½
bl okn fookn esa izos‘k fd, fcuk] ,rn}kjk ;g lEizsf{kr gS fd tc izR;FkhZ dz- 3 dks iznku dh xbZ lafonk dh dkykof/k iwoZ ls gh lekIr gks xbZ gS] ;kph dh fufonk ds fopkj ds funs‘k ds fy, pkgh xbZ lgk;rk Hkh fu"Qy gksuk O;Dr dh tkrh gSA
¼iSjk 7½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && O;kfIr && fof/kd vk/kkj mBkus ds rF; && fjV ;kfpdk ds fofgr :ifo/kku ds rF;ksa ds iSjk 5 esa ,sls rF; mfYyf[kr ugha && fcuk rF;kRed vk/kkj ds vko‘;d :i ls fopkj djus dh vko‘;drk ugha && ogh vfHkopu djuk vuqer ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % e-iz- mPp U;k;ky; ds fu;eksa] 2008 ds varxZr fjV ;kfpdk dk :ifo/kku micaf/kr fd;k x;k gSA fofgr :ifo/kku dk iSjk 5 fjV ;kfpdkdrkZ dks leLr lqlaxr rF; la;ksftr djus ds fy, ck/; djrk gS] tks mlds vuqlkj mlds leFkZu esa fof/kd vk/kkj mBkus nsaA fjV ;kfpdk ds :ifo/kku dk fofgr iSjk 6 fjV ;kfpdkdrkZ ls vis{kk djrk gS fd iwoZorhZ iSjk 5 esa of.kZr rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr fof/kd vk/kkj mBk,A fcuk rF;kRed vk/kkj ds fof/kd vk/kkjksa ij vfuok;Zr% fopkj djus dh vko‘;drk ugha gSA voyksdu ls] ge ikrs gS fd iSjk 5 esa iw.kZr;k dksbZ fcanq ugha gS fd izR;FkhZ dz- 3 [kaM ¼lh½ rFkk ¼,e½ ¼iwoksZDr½ ds vikyu ls vik= FkkA ;kfpdkdrkZ vfHkopuksa dh ,slh deh ds ckotwn visf{kr vfHkopu la‘kks/ku }kjk ugha mBk ldrkA
¼iSjk 9½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && O;kfIr && xkM+h [kM+s djus ds LFkku dh lafonk izfrKkfir djus ds v/khu lefiZr && uohu fufonk izR;FkhZ dz- 3 dh eatwj dh xbZ && uohu fufonk rFkk ek¡x lwpuk&i= vk{ksfir && izR;FkhZ dz- 3 }kjk opu foca/k dh vkifRrRr mBkbZ xbZ && ;g vkifRrRr vfHkopfur ugha && leqfpr rFkk iw.kZ vfHkopuksa ,oa lk{; ds fcuk && ,slk fook|d fjV ;kfpdk esa fofuf‘pr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && flfoy okn dh Lora=rk iznku dh xbZA
¼iSjk 2] 3 rFkk 10½
Naik, J. –
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been submitted for quashment of tender allotted to respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-12 and for further direction to consider the tender of the petitioner. Quashment of the demand raised against the petitioner vide Annexue P-13 has also been prayed for.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner was holding the contract for car parking in Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Airport, Indore. On 22.5.2009, the petitioner surrendered the car parking contract with six months' notice under protest. At the relevant point of time, licence fee of the contract was Rs.8,47,000/- plus service tax per month. Copy of the surrender letter dated 22.5.2009 is on record as Annexure P-2. Notice period was coming to an end on 21.11.2009, therefore, the Airport Authority of India (respondent No.1) entered into negotiations with the petitioner and it was decided that Rs.8,41,000/- plus service tax will be paid by the petitioner and also that when the regular tender would be invited, whatever amount will be quoted, the petitioner will deposit the difference amount. In this background, the Airport Authority reduced the price from Rs.8,47,000/- plus service tax per month to Rs.4,60,000/- plus service tax per month.
3. On 22.1.2010, fresh tender for car parking was opened. According to the petitioner, respondents No.3 and 4 did not fulfil the eligibility criteria which was objected to vide Annexure P-5 dated 16.3.2010. Despite such complaints, vide Annexure P-6 to P-11, tender was awarded to respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-12 dated 11.5.2010. It is stated in the petition that tender was allotted to respondent No.3 in an illegal manner, despite absence of eligibility. Ignoring its ineligibility, difference amount payable by the petitioner has been calculated at Rs.7,77,786/- per month plus service tax, on the basis of tender awarded to respondent No.3 in illegal manner. Respondent No.1 thereafter, issued letter dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure P-13) demanding thereby recovery of difference amount of Rs.19,92,226/- from the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.2 again issued letter dated 1.6.2010, Annexure P-14, demanding thereby Rs.19,92,226/- against the bill dated 19.5.2010 and Rs.2,18,473/- against the bill dated 3.5.2010. The petitioner was requested to make the payment upto 8.6.2010, failing which it was informed that money payable to the petitioner would be adjusted/appropriated against the money payable to the petitioner by respondent No.1.
It is further stated in the petition that since respondent No.1 was ineligible, the tender allotted to him is equally illegal. According y, the petitioner is not liable to pay difference amount on the basis of lender illegally awarded to respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, the ineligibility of respondent No.3 was on account of non-compliance of sub-clauses (c) and (m) of clause 5 of the General Information/Guidelines.
In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner has claimed the following main reliefs :
"A. The impugned letter dated 11.5.2010 (Annexure P-12) may kindly be quashed and the tender allotted to the respondent No.3 may kindly be cancelled.
B. The impugned letter dated 1.6.2010 (Annexure P-13) may kindly be quashed and the demand raised by the respondents vide this letter may kindly be quashed.
C. The respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to consider the tender of the petitioner.
D. Appropriate order may kindly be passed that the respondents No.3 and 4 did not qualify in the technical bid."
4. Ajoint reply has been submitted by respondents No.1 and 2, whereas a separate reply has been submitted by respondent No.3.
It has been stated in the reply that tender to respondent No.3 was duly allotted by respondents No.1 and 2, for a period of one year, vide Annexure P-12 dated 11.5.2010 in due manner, after considering all the relevant terms and conditions. As regards the difference amount recoverable from the petitioner, i
SupremeToday
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
