TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er till March 24, 2000 at 11 a.m. by making it clear that there shall be no interim relief except that the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation shall not issue work order till further orders. However, on March 23, 2000 M/s. Millenium Infrastructure (P) Ltd. withdrew the aforesaid writ petition. Five persons tendered their documents and papers and they are M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd., appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6717-18 of 2000, M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd., appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of 6298 of 2000 and respondent No. 3, M/s. Jai Krishna Infrastructure (P) Ltd., respondent No. 4, M/s. Oriental Veneers (P) Ltd. respondent No. 5, M/s. Sample Infrastructure, respondent No. 6 in the Appeal filed by M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. The Commissioner of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, however, intimated the tenderers that as the High Court was seized of a writ petition he did not propose to open the tenders until further orders from the High Court on March 24, 2000. However, he sought for information of the numbers of the tenders filed and the tenderers qualifying and not qualifying conditions Clauses 6(a) and 6(b) of the Tender ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the writ petition. However, it was noticed that by reason of the deletion of Clause 6(a) of the Tender Booklet a wider net was available and, therefore, the Municipal Corporation should have the benefit of as wide a field as should be reasonably possible. In that view of the matter, it did not direct the Municipal Corporation to accept the higher bid of M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. and thereby while quashing the award of contract in favour of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. made it clear that the Municipal Corporation would be at liberty to invite a fresh tender for the purpose of awarding the contract for collection of octroi on terms and conditions which would be prescribed by the Municipal Corporation. Further, it was made clear that the aforesaid process should be completed within a period of four weeks and some interim arrangement for collection of octroi shall be made subject to certain conditions. This order made by the High Court is called in question by the appellants. On April 17, 2000 when this matter came up for consideration before this Court, we made an order while issuing notice to all the parties to continue the interim arrangement subject to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arises for consideration in these cases are (i) whether the High Court is justified in setting aside the award of contract in favour of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd.; (ii) whether the direction for fresh process of tender instead of awarding the contract in favour of M/s. Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, and (iii) the effect of the steps taken now by the Municipal Corporation to call for fresh tenders. Shri Shanti Bhushan and Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, for the appellant, pointed out that the sanctity of the tender process must be maintained and principles in relation to award of contact should be settled instead of merely making an order which is expedient in the circumstances of the case. Both of them submitted that in the new tender process Clauses 6(a) and 6(b) have been altogether deleted which is only to favour M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. and, therefore, we should not encourage such activity in these matters. There have been several decisions rendered by this Court on the question of tender process, the award of contract and evolved several principles in regard to the same. Ultimately what prevails with the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a particular condition the wider net will be permissible and a larger participation or more attractive bids could be offered. Now it is necessary to consider the case of Ramchand Mahadev Rao. One of the conditions to make offer is regarding the earnest money deposit for a sum of ₹ 1.70 crores in the form of crossed Demand Draft/Pay Order or Cash. Ramchand Mahadev Rao got prepared a cheque for ₹ 1.70 crores as required from the bank and submitted the tender just before the expiry of the time on April 19, 2000. He further alleges that in haste and confusion he misplaced the Demand Draft and was in a wrong impression that a mere photocopy of the draft duly notarised will be sufficient and, therefore, he submitted photocopy of the Demand Draft along with other relevant documents. The conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender is that the same should be accompanied by a Demand Draft/pay order or cash and in no other form. It is clear from the statement made by him as to in what manner he could gather an impression that a photocopy of the Demand Draft duly notorised would be sufficient nor it could be said that it is naive to accept a mere statement that Demand Draft for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
