Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 843 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking quashment of the NIT (bid) open tender process with regard to Revised 3rd Call - Seeking direction to respondents-State to initiate the fresh tender process - It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner is presently working at a rate which comes to rupees 405 Crore annually for five years, whereas the respondent No.4 has submitted bid to the tune of ₹ 642 Crore annual for five years with a clause for increase every year depending upon inflation - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (5) TMI 944 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that State has administrative discretion to cancel entire tender process in public interest provided such action is not actuated with ulterior motive, arbitrariness, irrationality or is in violation of some statutory provisions - In the facts of the present case, there is no arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in finalizing the selection of respondent No.4, especially when the petitioner had not submitted any bid before the cut-off date. Since the petitioner has not participated, therefore, his argument that the respondents could have fatched better price has no merit. The petitioner got advantage of already extended one year in two phases of six months for one or another reason. The judgment in the case of STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. VERSUS SUSRITA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. [2014 (4) TMI 1138 - SUPREME COURT] the Apex Court held that “the sale may be either by public auction or private contract. In either case the trustee has to keep in mind that he must obtain the most advantageous price.” In the facts of the said case the tender process was set aside and directions were issued for fresh tender but in the facts of the present case nothing has been brought by the petitioner to show in what manner the respondents have acted arbitrarily in finalizing the tender of the respondent No.4. In the present case the petitioner has failed to point out any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in selection of respondent No.4. The petitioner has to blame himself for not participating in the tender process - There is no illegality or arbitrariness in decision making process of the respondents in finalizing the bid of the respondent No.4, especially when the petitioner himself has not participated in the tender process. Petition dismissed.
|