Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 884 - HC - Indian LawsAdequacy of Documents - Declaration of technical bid of the respondent No.5 submitted for settlement of M.G. Bazar Foreign Liquor Shop No.4 - HELD THAT:- This court cannot be oblivious of its jurisdictional limit in the matter of the judicial review - The court does not have omnibus powers to decide a decision on the merit of the decision of the competent authority. Its power is limited to examine the process to see whether the fair play principles at that stage was conformed to. The respondents No.1,2,3 & 4 cannot take a stand that they can depart from the standard by which they professed its action to be judged. They must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. Thus, what the respondents No.1,2, 3 & 4 have asserted in their reply that the Clauses 4(ii) & (iii) of the DNIT are not essential and mandatory in nature is not accepted by us. That plea is rejected. But we find that even if that plea is rejected, their decision may not be affected substantially. What we have observed that the respondent No.5 has clearly stated that he does not have the immovable property but the said respondent has submitted the statement in respect of the bank balance and the supporting documents issued by the Bank Manager of the bank where the respondent No.5 maintained his savings and there is no dispute that the said documents were duly notorized. What is required in terms of the Clauses 4(iii) of the DNIT is uploading of a no objection certificate from the owner of the building along with supporting documents duly attested by the Notary Public. It is an admitted fact that no objection certificate and touji record had been uploaded with the technical bid. Regarding the mismatch of number of touji is concerned, the official respondents have clarified their position by stating that there was a typographical mistake. When the document itself is present the tendering authority can waive such objection by taking into consideration the document itself. [15] So far the objection relating to Rule 26(3) of the Tripura Excise Rules is concerned, what is relevant is the present status of the building not what was earlier at the time of opening of the touji. Touji cannot be treated as a perennial document for status of the building - The official respondents did not accept the field inquiry report as that showed the premises as a whole to measured at 407.745 square feet and it was an RCC building. As such, no legal wrath did surface so far. Neither from the reply nor from the records so produced it can be gathered how the official respondents had dealt with the said observation as regards non-availability of any permission order in the physical verification report. This is a serious issue cannot be simply brushed aside - the challenge structured upon non-compliance of the requirement of Clauses 4(ii) & (iii) of the DNIT is bound to fall through. But we cannot say that the official respondents had taken all relevant consideration for coming to that decision. The official respondents were bound to take a decision on the observation made by the filed verification committee, as reproduced, before opening of the financial bid inasmuch as the State cannot extend its patronage of any form to any illegal act in whatever form. Thus, they were under obligation to take a decision on the observation of the said designated committee in respect of non-production of the sanction for construction of the building as required under law. The non- production may mean absence of sanction of plan. In that event the construction is bound to termed as grossly unauthorized and the state patronage in the form of granting licence to run a foreign liquor shop should not have been extended. The respondent No.3 shall take a fresh call and decide on the observation made by the field verification committee as constituted by him. Till then the decision to grant the licnece to the respondent No.5 shall be put on hold. If the respondent No.3 arrived at a decision that the said construction relating to the proposed shop had been carried out unauthorizedly and there had been no sanction of plan for such construction on the date when the bid was uploaded in response to the DNIT, he shall take a decision appropriate in the circumstances - Petition disposed off.
|