Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Abdul Majid Wani vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 13 May, 2022
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 04.05.2022
Pronounced on 13.05.2022
WP(C) No. 1347/2021 (O&M)
Abdul Majid Wani .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. K. S. Johal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate
Vs
Union Territory of J&K and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for commanding the respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner and to allot the work of extraction, Off-Road Transportation and Transportation of markings in Compartment No. 13-Siraj being the sole bidder/tenderer in response to the e-NIT No. 03 of 2021-22/East dated 09.06.2021 and further restraining the respondents from issuing any fresh NIT in respect of 13-Siraj without considering the tender/financial bid submitted by the petitioner in response to the aforesaid NIT.
2. It is stated that the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Development Corporation sanctioned the allotment of contract work of extraction and transportation of 2.47 lac Cft (RV)/1.23 lac Cft (SV) of timber in Compartment 42/Siraj of Forest Division Doda vide sanction order bearing No. 369- 72/GM/SFC/DC/CJ dated 21.11.2009 at the agreed rate of 95.57 per cft. 2 WP(C) No. 1347/2021 in favour of the G. A. Wani concern, of which, the petitioner is also a partner. During execution of the contract, it was observed that the transporting of logs in mahan through the Nallah was very dangerous and damaging because there was every likelihood of flash floods in the Nallah which could wash away the whole of the mahan and cause huge loss to the contractor as well as the Corporation. The matter was discussed with the management of the Corporation and it was found that the use of mono-cable cranes instead of mahan through Nallah is the safest way to transport the timber upto the loading point for road transportation to the depots of the Corporation at Jammu. However, the purchase of these mono-cable cranes was a costly affair and investment of crores of rupees was required, which was not feasible. The firm of the petitioner showed its reluctance in purchasing the mono-cable cranes for off-road transportation of the timber logs citing the reason of higher cost and less return but the management in categorical terms assured the petitioner's concern that in case petitioner's concern purchases the mono-cable cranes for off-road transportation of timber in compartment No. 42/Siraj, the Corporation will allot the extraction and transportation of timber to the petitioner in all the compartment adjacent to 42/Siraj viz. 13/Siraj, 33/Siraj, 35/Siraj, 70(a)/Siraj, 70(b)/Siraj, 71/Siraj etc of Forest Extraction Division Doda so that the petitioner's concern is adequately compensated for the investment and purchase of the mono-cable cranes. There was explicit understanding that the extraction and transportation of timber from the compartments adjacent to 42/Siraj particularly compartment No. 13/Siraj will be allotted to the petitioner only, even the petitioner was also 3 WP(C) No. 1347/2021 associated by the Forest Department in the process of marking of the trees for felling and conversion into logs in these compartments particularly in compartment No. 13-Siraj. After completion of the markings and assessment of the volume of the Timber to be extracted in the above mentioned compartments particularly 13/Siraj, the management totally ignored the assurance given to the petitioner and in utter derogation of all promises, put the extraction and transportation work in the said compartments particularly compartment No. 13-Siraj to tender by issuing e-NIT 03 of 2017-18/Tenders/SFC/ECD dated 16.03.2018 seeking tenders for various Timber logging Operations i.e. extraction, off-road transportation and transportation of markings available in various compartment in Forest Extract Division Doda including 13/Siraj but no contractor came forward to the said offer. The respondents floated another NIT being e-NIT No. 01/Tenders/SFC/ECD dated 16.04.2018 for the extraction, and transportation work in different forest compartments including 13/Siraj but no contractor participated in the said tender. Thereafter, after more than one and half year, third time NIT was issued on 02.09.2020 bearing No. 02/2020-21/EAST but the process again failed and no one came forward to submit the tender. The petitioner did not participate in the tendering process and did not submit his tenders in response to above three e-NITs so far as it pertained to 13-Siraj firstly because the rates sanctioned by the Corporation were very low and not feasible and secondly because the petitioner despite having been made to purchase mono-cable cranes and other equipment on the assurance that his 4 WP(C) No. 1347/2021 concern will only be allotted the extraction work in the compartments adjacent to compartment No. 42/Siraj, but was not allotted the work.
3. Later on the respondent No. 3 issued e-NIT No. 03 of 2021-22/East dated 09.06.2021 for the extraction, Off-Road Transportation and Transportation of marked trees available in advertised compartments/groups of compartments in East Circle Doda including compartment N0. 13-Siraj.
4. The petitioner participated in the tender and submitted his tender for various timber logging operations in compartment No. 13/siraj. The petitioner has deposited Rs. 28,66,900/- as the earnest money and on 01.07.2021, the petitioner was found as the sole response to the e-NIT so far as it pertains to the NIT pertaining to Timber Logging Operation in compartment No. 13/Siraj.
5. The respondents finding that the petitioner being the only person who had responded to e-NIT is entitled for allotment of the work are delaying the allotment of contract to the petitioner. As the petitioner is having all the requisite infrastructure for the successful execution of the contract, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner and to allot the work of extraction, off road transportation and transportation of markings in compartment No. 13 Siraj being the sole bidder/tenderer.
6. Response stands filed by the respondents in which it is stated that no assurance was given to the petitioner for allotment of the work in the adjacent compartment as claimed by the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner participated in the tender under reference and as only a 5 WP(C) No. 1347/2021 single bid was received so it was decided to create competition by retendering by the competent authority. The respondents are well within the right not to accept the bid of the petitioner as the petitioner was the only participant in the tender process.
7. Mr. K. S. Johal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner being the only bidder was entitled for allotment of the contract. He relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court, titled, Tdi International India Ltd vs Airports Authority of India and another, 2004 (115) DLT 139.
8. On the contrary, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG for the respondents has vehemently argued that the respondents are well within their right to accept or reject the tender and in the instant case, as no bid was received by the respondents except that of the petitioner, so in order to get the better option, the competent authority has decided to retender.
9. Heard and perused the record.
10. Condition No. 13.1 of the general instructions to bidder reveals that the accepting authority reserves the right to accept or reject any or all the tender(s), before or after their opening, without assigning reasons for any such action, as such, the respondents are well within their right either to accept or reject any or all tender(s) before or after their opening, without assigning reasons.
11. In the instant case, the respondents have a valid reason not to accept the offer of the petitioner as they have received only one bid so it is for the respondents to see that they get the best offer in response to their tender. This Court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the 6 WP(C) No. 1347/2021 respondents and the petitioner cannot seek any direction for allotment of the contract for his concern being the only bidder, as he has no vested right for allotment of contract. It is prerogative of the respondents to either accept or refuse the offer made by the petitioner. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has no role to play in the instant case. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Johal rather runs contrary to the claim of the petitioner.
12. Viewed thus, this petition has no merit, as such, the same is dismissed.
(Rajnesh Oswal) Judge JAMMU 13.05.2022 Rakesh Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No