Gujarat High Court
M/S. Natraj Motor Body Builder Through ... vs Gvk Emergency Management And Research ... on 23 December, 2020
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria, Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/SCA/9541/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9541 of 2020
==========================================================
M/S. NATRAJ MOTOR BODY BUILDER THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
RAMPRATAP CHOTURAM SHARMA
Versus
GVK EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
==========================================================
Appearance:
RUSHI A BAROT(8993) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JAPAN V DAVE(5947) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, AGP for Respondent(s) No. 2, 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 23/12/2020
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr.Rushi Barot for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Hamesh Naidu for respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr.Japan Dave for respondent No.5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Divyangna Jhala for respondent Nos.2 and 3-authorities of the State, at length. The endorsement shows that notice is served upon respondent No.4, however none appeared on their behalf.
1.1 Learned advocates appearing for the parties rest their respective arguments with regard to the admission of the petition as well as grant or otherwise of the interim relief.
2. What is prayed by the petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to direct and command respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 25 07:36:56 IST 2020 C/SCA/9541/2020 ORDER issue Letter of Intent and/or Purchase Order in respect of tender bid Reference No.GVK EMRI/GJ/AT/MVD/F&G/RESPONDENT/2020-21 to respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. The other principal prayer is for directing respondent No.1 to issue work order for the said tender for fabrication (interior, furnishing and exterior graphic work) of the Mobile Veterinity Dispensary.
2.1 Interim relief is asked for directing the respondents to stay their hands in their proceedings further in respect of the tender process and not to issue work order.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the State and the Department of Animal Husbandry floated the first tender through its nodal agency GVK Emergency Management & Research Institute-respondent No.1 herein, which was tender dated 07 th March, 2020 for carrying out fabrication work for Mobile Vaternary Dispensary. It is the case of the petitioner that having participated in the said tender initially floated, the petitioner was only successful bidder. The authorities had at that time opened technical bid as well as price bid simultaneously. It is the contention that despite the petitioner was the sole bidder and according to the petitioner it was getting qualified, should be awarded the contract, the said first tender came to be rescinded and the petitioner was deprived of awarding of the contract.
3.1 It appears, as per the case, that Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 25 07:36:56 IST 2020 C/SCA/9541/2020 ORDER subsequently a second tender dated 25th June, 2020 was floated. According to the petitioner, the said tender was for the same work whereas the case of the respondents has been that the second tender was not for the whole work but the work was compartmentalized and bids were invited for interior furnishing only. It is the case of the petitioner that he participated in the second tender process also, and respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein also participated. It appears that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were declared as L1 and L2 to the exclusion of the petitioner who stood third. The contract was divided in its work and respondent Nos.4 and 5 came to be jointly awarded the work.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended inter alia that giving up of the first tender process was in order to see that the petitioner does not get the contract. learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the second tender, the condition which was prescribed in the first tender that the bidder must be approved by ARAI was given up and the said condition did not figure in the second tender. It is the contention elaborated in the petition by the petitioner that the deletion of the said condition was guided by the consideration to favour particular party. It was submitted that respondent Nos.4 and 5 whose bids were accepted, were not eligible parties. Several other contentions are also raised in the petition.
4.1 The respondents filed their reply. The petitioner has filed rejoinder raising various Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 25 07:36:56 IST 2020 C/SCA/9541/2020 ORDER contentions. Learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has vehemently refuted the contentions of the petitioner.
5. Having considered the case of the petitioner and the reply and the rejoinder, the matter requires detailed hearing. Therefore, Rule, returnable on 03rd February, 2021.
6. As far as the interim relief is concerned, it is an uncontroverted stand from the affidavit-in- reply of respondent No.1 dated 10th September, 2020 as averred in paragraph No.6 that the purchase orders were prepared on 13th August, 2020 in favour of the successful bidders and the work has been assigned to the successful parties no 17th August, 2020. The copy of the work order is also annexed with the affidavit. The petitioner preferred this petition, it is stated, on 18th August, 2020.
6.1 In view of the above aspect emerging, the question of grant any interim relief does not arise. Therefore, interim relief is refused. However, the parties shall abide by the final outcome of the petition.
7. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of Rule.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J) Pallavi/Anup Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 25 07:36:56 IST 2020